R.A.Sharma, J - (1.) The workman, respondent No. 3, who was employed in February, 1972, as a Junior Clerk in the petitioner's mill raised a dispute about his designation and pay which was referred by the Government to the Labour Court I, Kanpur. The Labour Court has given the award in favour of the workman and has directed thereby for giving designation and pay of Travelling Salesman to the workman. It is against this Award that the petitioner has filled this writ petition.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that by the impugned Award Labour Court has promoted the workman, which is managerial function and as such the award of the Labour Court is without jurisdiction. In this connection the learned counsel has relied upon two decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Management of Brook Bond India Ltd. v. Their Workman = 1966 (1) LLJ 402 and Hindustan Lever v. Their Workmen. 1974 I LLJ 94. In support of his argument the learned counsel has invited my attention to the Channel of promotion and in connection therewith has also referred to some agreement. This plea was taken before the Labour Court also, but was rejected on the ground that no documentary evidence, in its support, so as to prove the Channel of promotion has been filed by the employer.
(3.) It is true that in these cases the Hon'ble Supreme Court has declared that promotion of workman is managerial function and is outside the purview of the Labour Court. However, in another case of Workman Employed by Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Hindustan Lever Ltd. = 1984 LIC 1573. Hon'ble Supreme Court has cast doubt on its earlier decision referred to above and has observed that view that promotion is a managerial function requires re-consideration, that as it may so far as this Court is concerned law has to be taken that the promotion of a workman is managerial function.;