- (1.) This appeal by the workmen of the respondent company No. 1 is directed against . the judgment of a learned single Judge, allowing the writ petition at the instance of the respondent company and quashing an award of the Labour Court, Lucknow, which has been impleaded as respondent No. 3. The material facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellants, who were employed as Time Keepers pressed a demand for being up-graded to Grade 'B' of the clerical staff of the respondent company and being accorded the scale of Rs. 100-250. Their demand not being acceptable to the management, their claim was sponsored by respondent No. 2 Hind Mazdoor Sabha. The conciliation proceedings proved futile and consequently the State Government referred to the Labour Court under Section 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, the following dispute for adjudication: "KYA SEVAYOJKO DWARA PARTST ME ULIAKHIT SHRAMIKO KO LIKHIT SRENI (B) TATHA VETAN KRAM RUPIYA 100-250 DIYA JANA UCHIT TATHA VAIDHANIK HAI YADI NAHI, TO SAMBANDHIT SHRAMIK KIS TITHI SE KIS LABH CHATI PURTI KE ADHI- KARI HAI EVAM KIS VIVRAN KE SATH ?"
(2.) Written statements were exchanged between the parties and on a consideration of the pleadings and the evidence led the Labour Court gave an award to the effect that the workmen mentioned in the order of reference be placed in Grade 'B' of the clerical staff of the Company concerned and be accorded the wage scale of Rs. 100-250 with effect from 1st of August 1970. It further awarded that for the period commencing 1st of August 1970, the workmen shall be paid the resultant difference in their wages. An amount of Rs. 150/- was also awarded to the appellants workmen as costs. Aggrieved by the award which was enforced by the State Government by means of a notification dated 11th of October, 1971, the respondent company filed a writ petition challenging the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. It was prayed that a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to the writ petition not to enforce the award of the Labour Court dated 21st February 1972. The learned Single Judge, who heard the petition took the view that the dispute raised by the workmen and referred to the Labour Court for adjudication amounted to one for promotion and relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Brooke Bond India (P.) Ltd. v Their Workmen, 1966 AIR(SC) 668held that promotion being a management function it was not open to the Labour Court to give the award it did. The writ petition was consequently allowed and the impugned order quashed. No costs were awarded to the successful Company.
(3.) In this appeal before us Sri K. P. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the appellants workmen, contended that in its true nature the dispute referred for adjudication to the Labour Court was not one in which the workmen claimed promotion and the learned single Judge had erred in relying on the decision of the Supreme Court mentioned above and in quashing the award. Sri M. K. Katju learned counsel appearing for the respondent company on the other hand strongly contended that in substance the workmen claimed promotion and in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court on which the reliance was placed by him during the course of arguments, the learned single Judge was right in the view taken by him and in quashing the award.;