ORDER S.K. Dhaon, J. - 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 referred 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 ease 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 he `seniority-cum-merit.' 4. Learned counsel for the workmen does not dispute that the criterion for promotion in the employer's establishment is `seniority-cum-merit'. He also does not contend that the selection board was not properly constituted. He does not say that any member of the selection board was in any manner biased either in favour of or against a particular candidate for promotion. His only grievance is that the Standing Order in question does not permit the holding of an interview by the employer for the purposes of selection. He does not say that any member of the selection board was in any manner biased either in favour of or against a particular candidate for promotion. His only grievance is that the Standing Order in question does not permit the holding of an interview by the employer for the purposes of selection. The argument is that in an interview the element of subjectivity is inherent. This element, according to him is destructive of the second requirement of the Standing Order, namely' objective standards of qualifications. 5. The first question to be determined is as to whether the employer has any right at all to introduce the procedure of an interview when the Standing Order does not talk of it. In my opinion, there being no prohibition either express or implied in the phraseology employed in the Standing Order 31, it is implicit in the terms of the Standing Order that the employer is free to adopt any procedure which advances the object of the Standing Order and does not defeat it. In other words the employer has, under the Standing Order, an implied right to take recourse to a procedure which is fair and which is in consonance with the principles of natural justice. It is to be remembered that an employer is interested in the welfare and in the advancement of its establishment. It has, therefore, to maintain the quality of its workmen. Since the number of prospective promotees exceed the number of posts, a process of selection has to be adopted and in that process the best amongst the lot have to be picked up and chosen. In Dhani Devi v. Sant Bihari Sharma, AIR 1970 SC 759 the Supreme Court quoted with approval the following from American Jurisprudence II, Volume II Administrative Law Article 310 at page 145 : "Where the statute does not require any particular method or procedure to be followed by an administrative agency, the agency may adopt any reasonable method to carry out its functions. Therefore, the employer was fully competent to adopt the procedure of selection by holding an interview. 6. The phrase `objective standards of qualifications' in the Standing Order is not defined. Indeed, it is difficult if not impossible, to enumerate such standards exhaustively. The phrase embraces a fair assessment of the equipment and the achievements of a particular workman. Therefore, the employer was fully competent to adopt the procedure of selection by holding an interview. 6. The phrase `objective standards of qualifications' in the Standing Order is not defined. Indeed, it is difficult if not impossible, to enumerate such standards exhaustively. The phrase embraces a fair assessment of the equipment and the achievements of a particular workman. Of course, if a minimum qualification is prescribed, that has to be satisfied to each candidate for promotion. It is well-known that seniority and merit both play equal part in the matter of promotion and, in fact, seniority and merit should temper each other. There can be no difficulty in accepting the principle. The trouble, however, arises in its implementation. Some time back, it was considered that the promotion of a particular workman was the prerogative of the management. To obviate the inherent danger in conferring an absolute right or power in the management to promote or not to promote a particular workman, various methods were evolved, one of them being to provide for the certified Standing Orders in pursuance of the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Act, as in the instant case. In the absence of any charge of discrimination, arbitrariness or unfairness, the system of holding a selection by means of an interview cannot either be condemned or discarded on the mere ground that in it, to a certain extent, the element of subjectivity exists. While examining such a question a broad out-look should be adopted and the matter should be viewed in a larger perspective after balancing the totality of the advantages and the disadvantages in the system. In Dr. J.P. Kulshrestha v. Chancellor, Allahabad University, AIR 1980 SC 2141 : 1980 Lab IC 692, the Court speaking through Hon'ble Krishna Iyer, J. as he then was, observed : "Did the Selection Committee act illegally in resorting to the interview process to pick out the best? We think not. Any administrative or quasi-judicial body clothed with powers and left unfettered by procedures is free to devise its own pragmatic, flexible and functionally viable processes of functioning business subject, of course, to the basics of natural justice, fair play in action, reasonableness in collecting decision materials, avoidance of arbitrariness and extraneous considerations and otherwise keeping within the leading strings of the law. We find no flaw in the methodology of `interviews'. We find no flaw in the methodology of `interviews'. Certainly, cases arise where the art of interviewing candidates deteriorates from strategy to stratagem and undetectable manipulation of results is achieved by remote control tactics masked as viva voce tests. This, if allowed, is surely a sabotage of the purity of proceedings, a subterfuge whereby legal means to reach illegal ends is achieved. So it is that courts insist, as the learned single Judge has, in this very case, suggested on recording of marks at interviews and other fair checks like guidelines for marks and remarks about candidates and the like. If the court is skeptical, the record of the selection proceedings, including the notes regarding the interviews, may have to be made available. Interviews, as such, are not bad but polluting it to attain illegitimate ends is bad. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was right when he wrote. |The Negro in your Brother by Martin Luther King Jr. published in "119 years of the Atlantic" ed. by Louise Desaulniers, p. 515. | "So I have tried to make it clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends. But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong, or even more, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends." 7. It follows that the promotion of persons other than the workmen concerned cannot be disturbed on the mere ground that in resorting to the method of interview the employer destroyed the concept of 'objective standards of qualifications' as laid down in the Standing Order No. 31. 8. As a result of the foregoing discussion, I find no infirmity in the impugned awards dated 15-10-1976 and 23-11-1976 given in the instant petition and in the companion writ petition respectively. Accordingly, both the writ petitions fail and are dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs in either of them.