- (1.) In this and the companion Writ Petition No. 999 of 1977 the interpretation of Standing Order 31, of the Hindalco Aluminium Corporation Limited, Renukoot (hereinafter referred to as the employer) alone is involved. It is, therefore, convenient to decide the two writ petitions by a common judgment.
(2.) The dispute in the writ petitions relates to the promotion of the Workmen by the employer. Both the writ petitions are directed against separate awards given by the Labour Court at Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the Court) in separate Reference made to it by the State Government, under S. 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The terms of the References made by the State Government in both the cases were similar inasmuch as the question referrd for adjudication was as to whether the workmen concerned in the two cases had been wrongfully and unjustifiably denied promotions by the employer. In both the cases the Court held that the selections made by the employer in the matter of promotion were neither unfair nor unjust nor illegal. Accordingly, the Court decided the two reference against the workmen.
(3.) Standing Order 31, which is the bone of contention between the employer and the workmen runs : "Promotion to workmen shall be granted without discrimination and with due regard to seniority and objective standards of qualifications." It is the admitted case of the parties that the employer constituted a selection board for the purpose of selecting the best of its workmen who were qualified to be promoted. It is also not disputed that the employer authorised the Selection Board to hold an interview of the prospective promotees. From a perusal of the Standing Order, quoted above, it is apparent that it envisages, in the popular sense, that the consideration for promotion should be 'seniority-cum-merit';