Bombay High Court
Paints Employees' Union (By General ... vs Nail (M.D.) (Assistant Commissioner Of ... on 14 September, 1965
Equivalent citations: (1966)ILLJ579BOM
JUDGMENT Chainani, C.J.
1. Petitioner 1 is a union of the workers employed by respondent 2. Petitioner 2 is one of the employees. There was a dispute between the petitioners and respondent 2 in regard to the policy pursued by respondent 2 in making promotions to higher posts. As no agreement could be reached between the parties, the petitioners approached the Commissioner of Labour, who has been appointed as conciliation officer under the Industrial Disputes Act. After hearing the parties he informed the petitioners that he did not propose to intervene in the matter. Against that order this application has been filed.
2. It is now well-settled that an order refusing to take a dispute in conciliation is an administrative order. Unless therefore the petitioners can show that the conciliator, respondent 1, had committed some error of law, we cannot interfere. Sri Kamerkar has argued that even though promotions are a matter of internal administration for the management to decide, in this case respondent 2 had issued circulars laying down the broad principles, which respondent 2 were following in making promotions. The grievance of the petitioners is that these principles have not been followed. Sri Kamerkar has urged that it was therefore the duty of respondent 1 to inquire into and determine whether the principles laid down in the circulars issued by respondent 2, such as the circular Ex. B issued on 31 January 1951, were being followed. Respondent 2 have stated in Para. 6 of their affidavit that in exercising their managerial discretion for making promotions they keep the broad principles in mind. In Para. 24 of their affidavit respondent 2 have stated that discussions had taken place before respondent 1 both on law and on merits. In Para. 23 of his affidavit respondent 1 has stated that respondent 2 did in fact justify by arguments before him that the promotions were bona fide and made without any unfair labour practice. In Para. 13 he has stated that he was satisfied on inquiry that while granting the promotions the company had not acted with any ulterior considerations and that the promotions did not constitute an unfair labour practice. In Para. 21 he has observed that after careful consideration of the case of both parties he came to the conclusion that respondent 2 had bona fide and properly exercised its managerial right of promotion. In view of these statements in the affidavit of respondent 1, we cannot say that he has not exercised his discretion according to law.
3. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.