S.S.Dhavan, J. - (1.) This is a petition by the L.H. Sugar Factories and Oil Mills Limited, Pilibhit under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the legality of an award made by the Labour Court Bareilly, holding that the petitioner company had wrongfully and unjustifiably deprived ten workmen of promotion to the post of driver-cum-assistant fitter and further declaring these workmen entitled to the same emoluments and increment in their salary and to the same terms of employment which had been given to eleven other workmen who had been preferred in the matter of promotion. All the ten workmen are respondents in the petition, the other respondents being the Labour Court, Bareilly, the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Workmen of the company represented by the Pilibhit Sugar Mill Labour Union. The facts as alleged in the affidavit supporting the petition are related in the following paragraph. But I would like to make a few comments on this affidavit. It is sworn by a person of the name of Ram Gopal Agarwal who describes himself as a clerk in the employment of the company. He had verified the allegations as true to his personal knowledge, but this is hard to believe. If a person swears an affidavit in a case which does not concern him. it is not enough for him to make the formal verification that he is personally acquainted with the facts deposed to in his affidavit: he must explain how he became acquainted with events and happenings which ordinarily did not appear to concern him. Ram Gopal states that he is a clerk of the company, but he does not state that he was dealing with the matters which lead to the dispute and the award, nor was learned counsel in a position to make this statement on a question from the Court. The official directly responsible for the promotions was either the Chief Engineer Or the Assistant Engineer of the Company. There is no affidavit by either of them nor by any official or director or labour officer of the Company. It appears that the petitioner company picked a clerk and sent him here for the purpose of swearing an affidavit without ascertaining that he could swear to the material facts from personal knowledge. This practice among institutions of asking a minor employee to swear the affidavit as a matter of formality must be condemned. This Court has emphasised again and again that the affidavit supporting a petition under Article 226 must be sworn by a person who Can, relate facts from his personal knowledge, It is true that Ram Gopal has verified his allegations as true to his knowledge, but the matters referred to in his affidavit do not ordinarily concern a clerk and in is doubtful that his verification is true. The affidavit being worthless, the petition could have been rejected on this ground alone, but I heard learned counsel for the petitioner in view of the importance of some of the questions of law raised by him.
(2.) The allegations are these. The petitioner company owns' and operates a sugar factory in Pilibhit in which a large number of workmen are employed. The ten workmen who are the respondents in this case were engaged as drivers along with many others. Of these others, eleven, who were also drivers and had worked as assistant fitters during the three previous off seasons, were appointed as driver-cum-assistant fitters on the recommendation, of the Chief Engineer for the off season of 1957. This had the consequence of raising their salaries. The other ten workers (the respondents in this petition) raised a dispute over these promotions which was referred to the Regional Conciliation. Officer of Bareilly. He made an inquiry and submitted his report to Government. However, the latter made no reference to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication and the dispute did not proceed further. This happened in 1957.
(3.) In August 1958 the dispute flared up again when the eleven workmen were confirmed in their appointments as driver-cum-assistant fitters--in other words, made permanent The company (or rather its clerk Ram Gopal Agarwal) alleges that they were selected because they were efficient and suitable for their posts. Apparently, the other ten workers took a different view and thought that they had been passed over and victimised for their trade union activities and lodged a complaint to the Regional Conciliation Officer. He made an inquiry and submitted his report. This time the Government took a different attitude to the dispute and referred it for adjudication to the Labour Court, Bareilly. The question referred was in these terms: "Whether the employers have wrongfully and/or unjustifiably deprived their workmen, mentioned in the Annexure, of promotion on the post of Driver-cum-Assistant Fitter with effect from August 1, 1957? If so, to what relief are the workmen entitled and with what details?" In the inquiry, the employer raised a preliminary, objection that the reference was invalid as it related to a matter in which government had already refused to make a reference, and the matter could not be re-opened. On merits the petitioner company pleaded that the question of promotion was within the exclusive discretion of the management and the Labour Court could not overrule its decision. The Labour Court rejected the preliminary objection and heard the case on merits. It framed the following issues : 1. Whether the workmen concerned were considered for the purposes of promotion as drivercum- assistant fitters? If not, why not? 2. Whether the workmen concerned were senior to and more efficient and suitable for promotion than those promoted? 3. Whether the workmen concerned were denied promotion because they were members of the P. S. M. Labour Union?;