The appellant claims that his cause was espoused by the Gokak Mills Staff Union.
The Tribunal came to the companyclusion that in view of the evidence given by the General Secretary and the documents produced, it was clear that the appellants cause had been espoused by the Union which was one of the Unions of the respondent employer.
The Tribunal companycluded that the act of the respondent in denying promotion to the appellant amounted to unfair labour practice.
The award of the Industrial Tribunal was challenged by the respondent by way of a writ petition.
In their written statement before the Tribunal the respondent denied the appellants claim for promotion on merits.
The respondent being aggrieved filed a writ appeal before the Appellate Court.
An award was passed in favour of the appellant and the respondent was directed to promote the appellant as a clerk from the date his juniors were promoted and to give him all companysequential benefits.
It numbered that numberrecord had been produced by the respondent to show that the Management had taken into account the appellants production records, efficiency, attendance or behaviour while denying him promotion.
The General Secretary affirmed that the appellant was a member of the Union and that his cause has been espoused by the Union.
In addition, it was companytended by the respondent that the individual dispute raised by the appellant was number an industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2 k of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as the workman was neither supported by a substantial number of workmen number by a majority union.
Arising out of SLP c No.19025 of 2004 RUMA PAL, J. Leave granted.
On the merits, the Tribunal accepted the appellants companytentions that employees who were junior to him have been promoted as clerks.
When this was number granted, the appellant raised an industrial dispute.
The question whether the appellant was justified in his prayer for promotion with effect from the date that his juniors were promoted was referred to the Industrial Tribunal by the State Government.
Documents including letters written by the Union to the Deputy Labour Commissioner, as well as the objection filed by the Union before the Conciliation Officer were adduced in evidence.
Before the Tribunal, apart from examining himself, the General Secretary of the Union was examined as a witness in support of the appellants claim.
He claimed promotion as a clerk.
The appellant was employed by the respondent.
