WORKMEN OF WILLIAMSON MAGOR & CO. LTD. v. WILLIAMSON MAGOR & CO. LTD. & ANR (2)

Citation: [1982] 2 S.C.R. 42

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: V.D. TULZAPURKAR, BAHARUL ISLAM, A. VARADARAJAN

Judgment text

WORKMEN OF WILLIAMSON MAGOR &CO. LTD. v. WILLIAMSON MAGOR & CO. LTD. & ANR. December 7, 1981 (V. D. TULZAPURKAR, BAHARUL ISLAM AND A. VARADARAJAN, JJ. ) Industrial Disputes Act 1947 Ss JO and 15. Management granting promotion to junior employees-Rightful claim ofsenior employees superseded-Industrial dispute-Whether there is victimization-Jwis· diction and duty of industrial tribunal to declare promotions illegal and unjustified-ln consultation with management and union frame norms and rules for promotion. Labour Law-Promotion-Whether a managerial function-Whether to be on subjective satisfaction of management or on some objective criteria. Words & Pharases-' Victimisation'-Meaning of-Interpretation in favour oflabour whether to be accepted. The Workmen (Respondent No.

I) alleged that the Management (Appel· lant) started giving indiscriminate and arbitrary promotions and/or u1>gradations to some of the employees who were its favourities, disregarding the rightful claims of a number of other employees so much so that even junior members were given promotions superseding the rightful claims of the senior employees. According to the Union, the management arbitrarily promoted/upgraded three persons and unjustly denied promotion/upgradation to twelve senior employees and that this was victimisation and unfair labour practice, and that these three persons after their promotion/upgradation used to do the same work as before occupying the same chairs and working on the same tables as they had done before the date of upg,rndation/promotion. As a dispute arose between the management and the union, the State Government referred the issue to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication.

During the pendency of the reference before the Tribunal the management again promoted from the General to the Special Grade two clerks supet >eding 56 senior and efficient clerks of the General Grade. This issue was also referred to the Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal, on a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced beforo it, found that the management did not care to establish the WORKMEN v. WILLIAMSON MAGOR & co. 43 justification of the promotions of the persons named in the two references superseding the claim of the others, but held that it could not give any relief to the workmen when their positive case was that there was no standard or norms for giving promotion.

In the appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the Management that : (I) Promotion is not a condition of service in a private company, 8 and (2) although there were no norms, the promotions of the persons in question were not arbitrary and that unless victimisation was proved by the union, the management's action should not be disturbed. Allowing the appeal HELD : 1. (i) The management, in consultation with the workmen or their representatives and under the direction, supervision and control of the Labour Commissioner shall frame norms/rules fixing quota for the grades and for promotion/upgradation of its workmen, and the upgradation and/or promotion shall be made by the management in terms of the norms/rules so framed.

[51 D-E] That meanwhile the promotions/upgradations of the three persons which is the subject matter of the first reference and the promotions/upgradations of 0 the two persons which is the subject matter of the second reference are cancelled and these workmen shall be at par with the workmen who were superseded till promotions/upgradations are made by the management in terms of the norms/rules to be prepared. No future promotions/upgradations shall be made until the norms/rules are framed. [51 F-52 A] (ii) Industrial Tribunals are inten oR. ts [198i] i $. C. R. ofthe witness examined. We are unable to agree with learned counsel and do not find any reason to differ from the findings of the learned Tribunal that the promotions of the fifteen persons were arbitrary and unjustified. Mr. Pai also submitted that unless victimization was proved by the union, the management's action should not be disturbed. The word 'victimization' has not been defineJ in 8 the statue.

The tetm was considered by this Court in the case 1 of Bharat Bank Limited v. Employees of Bharat Bank Ltd. ( ) This Court observed, "It (victimization) is an ordinary English word which means that a certain person has become a victim, in other words, that be has been unjustly dealt with". A submission was made on behalf of the management in that case that 'victimization' had acquired a special meaning in industrial disputes a:nd com10ted a person who became the victim of the employer's wrath by r<:ason of his trade union activities and that the word could not relate to a -person who was merely unjustly dismissed". This submission, however, was not considered by the Court. When, however, the word 'victimization' can be interpreted in two different ways, the interpretation which is in favour of the labour should be accepted as they are the poorer section of the people compared to the management. This Court in the case of K. C. P. Employees' Association, Madras v. Management of K. C. P.

Ltd. Madras & Ors. (2) observed "In. Industrial Law, interpreted and applied in the perspective of Part IV of the Constitution, the benefit of reasonable doubt on law and facts, if there be such doubt, must go to the weaker section, labour. The Tribunal wll! dispose of the case making this compassionate approach but without over-stepping the proved facts". We would therefore accept the interpretation of the word 'victimization' in·the normal meaning of being the victim of unfair and arbitrary action, and hold that there was victimization of the superseded workmen. 9. Even if promotion may not be a condition of service in a private company and promotion may be the function of the manage- . (I) [1950] SCR 459. (2) [19781 2 sec 42. WORKMEN v. WILLIAMSON MAGOR & co. (Ba! wrul Islam, J.

) 51 ment, it may be recognised that there may be occasions where the Tribunal may have to cancel the promotions made by the management where it is felt that persons superseded have been so superseded on account of legal malafide or victimization (See 1966 (2) SCR 465). Although in spite of the allegations of rnala fide, the union has not been able to prove factual ma/a fide, in this case malice in law and effectual victimization are obvious due to the fact that unjustified promotions of some junior persons were made superseding, without any reason or necessity, the cases of a large number of senior persons. 10.

As a result of the foregoing considerations, we allow the appeals and, accepting the finding of the Tribunal, give the following directions : (I) The management, in consultation with the workmen or their tepresentatives and under the direction, supervision and control of the Labour Commissioner of the region, shall frame norms/rules fixing quota for the grades and for promotion/upgradation of its workmen, in the light of the observations made above, within two months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this judgment by the Labour Commissioner. (2) The upgradation and/or promotion shall be made by the management in terms of the norms/rules so framed. (3) That meanwhile the promotions/upgradations 0f Sharbashree Saroj Kumar Mukherjee, Anil Chandra Gl10se and - Parameshwar Banerjee from General Grade to Special Grade clerks in preference to the twelve workmen mentioned in Annexure 'A', which is the subject matter of the first reference, namely, No.

3278-IR/IR/l lL-13271 dated April 2, 1974, and the promotions/upgradations of the persons mentioned in Annexure 'A' from the General Grade to Special Grade or Supervisor Grade in prefe· rence to the workmen mentioned in Annexure 'B', which is the subject niatter of the second reference, namely, Reference No. 7537- IR/IR/1 lL-132/71 dated December 10, 1974, are cancelled; and the workmen whose promotions are cancelled and the workmen who were superseded shall be at par wilh effect from the date of this judgment till promotions/upgradations are made by the management in terms of the norms/rules to be prepared; and no future promo- 52 SUPREME COURT REPORT~ [1982} 2 s. c. R. A tions/upgradations shall be made until the norms/rules are framed. · '. 11. T~e appeals are allmved with costs. B 12. Send a copy of this judgment to the Labour Commissioner forthwith. N. V. K. Appeals allowed. -- -