D. H. WAGHELA, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition, styled as a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, in reality, seeks to challenge the award and order of the Industrial Court, Ahmedabad, which are made in Reference (IC) No. 5 of 1993 and in Review Application No. 6 of 1999. After issuance of notice and grant of interim relief on 18. 1. 2000, the petition was adjourned from time to time and, by consent of the parties, it was taken up for final hearing and disposal. ( 2 ) THE dispute brought before the Industrial Court by way of a reference under Section 73-A of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, after failure of the conciliation, was, according to the terms of reference, related to and based on the demand of preparation of seniority lists of all the workmen showing the post and categorywise seniority of the employees employed in several sections, departments and offices or zones of the petitioner Company. After pendency of the reference for six years and the elaborate evidence adduced on both sides, the Industrial Court made the impugned award substantially granting the reliefs sought by the representative Union. The petitioner, therefore, filed a Review Application in the same Court which rejected it and the order made therein is also impugned in this petition. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Chari, was at pains to canvass before this Court only two contentions. Firstly, that the Industrial Court had no jurisdiction to practically redefine the organisation of the petitioner Company and usurp the managerial functions of making the departments and categorising the workmen. The other contention was that the impugned award was perverse insofar as the evidence led on behalf of the petitioner Company was not read as a whole and certain sentences were picked up from the deposition of the witness of the petitioner and relying upon them as admissions, some illogical conclusions were drawn. ( 4 ) THE relevant facts, in brief, are that the petitioner Company claiming to be an 85 year old company employing around 5000 employees did not have seniority lists of its workmen worth the name. ( 4 ) THE relevant facts, in brief, are that the petitioner Company claiming to be an 85 year old company employing around 5000 employees did not have seniority lists of its workmen worth the name. There already was an award of the Industrial Court, made in terms of a settlement, in Reference (IC) No. 50 of 1985, according to which, it was agreed that promotion in the Company would be granted according to seniority and merits, that seniority would be counted on the basis of services rendered on a particular post in a particular category and, more importantly, that seniority would be reckoned department-wise and category-wise. It appears that even after that award, no seniority lists were prepared till the demand and dispute as above was raised and referred. During the pendency of the proceeding in Reference (IC) No. 5 of 1993, an attempt was made to prepare the seniority lists pursuant to an application of the Union at the interim stage, which application was afterwards not pressed. Such seniority lists were produced before the Industrial Court along with the other documentary evidence and it was urged before that Court as well as before this Court that those provisional seniority lists should be accepted as the final lists as neither any employee nor the Union had taken any objection despite the objections having been invited. However, the Industrial Court had, after appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties, found that, in reality, there were many more departments or sections than the ten divisions called offices or zones among which the categories of the workmen were divided by the provisional lists. The senior personnel officer of the petitioner Company was examined before the Industrial Court who admitted in so many words that department-wise seniority lists were not made in respect of three Zonal Offices as also the fact that department-wise and category-wise seniority lists in respect of the employees of Sabarmati Power House, a division of the petitioner, were not made. It was also admitted that no lists of casual employees of the Company were made. In short, the Company had, in preparing its own seniority lists, first broadly divided its establishment into ten divisions (called offices or zones) according to their different and separate locations or functions. It was also admitted that no lists of casual employees of the Company were made. In short, the Company had, in preparing its own seniority lists, first broadly divided its establishment into ten divisions (called offices or zones) according to their different and separate locations or functions. The Union contended and sought to prove before the Court that there were, in fact, 27 departments among which the employees were divided and the departments were in existence and clearly discernible by the code numbers allotted to the employees by the Company itself. It was not in dispute before the Industrial Court that there were about 147 categories of workmen according to their posts or designations. ( 5 ) AFTER appreciation of the evidence, the Industrial Court has recorded the findings of fact that the 27 departments which already existed were required to be recognised for the purpose of making the seniority lists. It was also conceded before this Court by the learned counsel, on instructions of the personnel officer who was present in the Court, that the workmen in any particular category were liable to be transferred from one division to another division. Thus, for example, a clerk in the accounts department in one division or zone was liable to be transferred as a clerk in the accounts department of another division or zone. ( 6 ) THE bone of contention between the parties appears to be that the Company has, in running of its operations and in the making of the provisional lists, distributed the work-force into ten divisions which are also called zones, offices or zonal offices where, admittedly, there are different departments in which the employees of particular categories were employed. As against that, the Union has insisted that there are 27 distinct departments and the workmen employed in each department are transferable from one division to another in the same department. Therefore, the making of the seniority lists department-wise would necessarily mean that seniority of a particular workman in a particular category must appear in the particular department. As against that, the Union has insisted that there are 27 distinct departments and the workmen employed in each department are transferable from one division to another in the same department. Therefore, the making of the seniority lists department-wise would necessarily mean that seniority of a particular workman in a particular category must appear in the particular department. In fact, the genesis of the demand and dispute lies in the grievance that the management was prone to manipulating the seniority of the workmen in the same department by inter-division transfers, and the common seniority lists being not prepared or published, the affected workman would not even know where he stood in the seniority in the same category and same department. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel Mr. Chari appearing for the petitioner vehemently argued that the ten offices or divisions made by the Company for its administration and which were made the basis for making provisional seniority lists ought to have been accepted by the Industrial Court and the Court had no jurisdiction to divide the work-force into 27 departments for the purpose of making of the seniority lists. The learned counsel relied upon several judgments of the Supreme Court, leading among them being the judgment of the Full Bench in PARRY and CO. LTD. v. P. C. PALE and OTHERS reported in 1970 II-LLJ 429. It was argued that re-organisation of business was exclusively in the discretion of the management and the Tribunal ought not to have travelled beyond its jurisdiction in ordering the petitioner to have 27 departments for its establishment. These submissions are based on the premise that the impugned order was directing the petitioner to create or reorganise some departments which were not run as such by the petitioner. There is a basic factual fallacy in these submissions as the Industrial Court has neither created nor ordered creation of any departments, but the Court has, after adverting to the evidence on record, only recognised and taken as the basis the fact that there were 27 distinct departments created by the Company itself and distinctly defined by allotment of separate code numbers to them. In this view of the matter, the contentions of the petitioner that the Industrial Court had redefined the organisation or usurped the managerial functions of making the departments is misconceived. In this view of the matter, the contentions of the petitioner that the Industrial Court had redefined the organisation or usurped the managerial functions of making the departments is misconceived. The learned counsel could not also demonstrate as to how the making of department-wise seniority lists according to the impugned order could create any complication or cause any injustice. On the contrary, it is eminently reasonable that an employee in one department, such as, accounts, office or materials, is shown in the same seniority list if he could be employed at and transferred to the same department in any other division or zone. ( 8 ) THE other contention canvassed on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned award was perverse insofar as conclusions were drawn against the weight of evidence, is equally devoid of any substance. The Court was taken through the record of the evidence as far as it was relevant and produced before this Court and it could not be established or elicited as to which part of the evidence was wrongly relied upon. It is true that the main witness of the Company, i. e. the senior personnel officer, had stated in his deposition that the Company had, for its own purpose, created the departments and after making of the provisional seniority lists, notices inviting objections were published on the notice board. It was admitted by him that the employees employed in certain divisions of the Company were included in the seniority lists of another division. He admitted that he himself was posted in one or the other departments in the Central Office of the Company. It was also admitted that there were many departments in each of the office or zone and the workmen were identified by a particular code attached to the department. Thus, in short, the findings of fact arrived at by the Industrial Court are borne out for the most part by the deposition of the witness of the petitioner. In this context, the learned counsel Mr. Chari submitted that the petitioner was never put to notice either by the Court or by the Union that creation or reorganisation of 27 departments was contemplated and, therefore, the petitioner could not properly articulate the case before the Court. In this context, the learned counsel Mr. Chari submitted that the petitioner was never put to notice either by the Court or by the Union that creation or reorganisation of 27 departments was contemplated and, therefore, the petitioner could not properly articulate the case before the Court. He further submitted that the petitioner had, therefore, filed the Review Application in which the Court could have applied its mind and necessary modification in the impugned award ought to have been made. However, going through the judgment in Review Application No. 6 of 1999 filed by the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner had reagitated its contentions and insisted that the provisional seniority lists were properly reflecting the seniority of the workmen. The Court has observed in the impugned order that the conclusion that there are 27 distinct departments is drawn from the evidence. Thus, after considering the contentions of the parties, the Court has rejected the Review Application with costs. The important fact is that the petitioner had not agitated either the ground of lack of jurisdiction or the objection to the alleged creation of departments either in the main reference or in the review application. ( 9 ) IT cannot be gainsaid that the seniority lists of employees in any organisation is an important document on the basis of which the preference in promotion and the grant of other benefits can be decided. What was demanded by the Union in this case and what is directed by the impugned award is that a proper seniority list may be prepared by the Company in which, besides the other necessary details, the designation, department and category of the workmen has to be mentioned. Any industrial organsiation cannot have any reasonable objection to the making of such seniority list if it intends to deal with its employees fairly and also to give them a chance to represent their case on the basis of a properly prepared and updated seniority list, in case of any grievance involving seniority. In these facts and circumstances and for the reasons discussed hereinabove, there is no substance in any of the contentions of the petitioner and, therefore, the petition is rejected. The ad-interim injunction granted earlier stands vacated. Notice is discharged with no order as to costs. In these facts and circumstances and for the reasons discussed hereinabove, there is no substance in any of the contentions of the petitioner and, therefore, the petition is rejected. The ad-interim injunction granted earlier stands vacated. Notice is discharged with no order as to costs. ( 10 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner to continue for a period of two months the stay of operation of the impugned award and order at Annexures-C and D, which was granted by this Court on 18. 1. 2000. However, in view of the fact that the impugned award is dated 30. 1. 1999, which was made after the pendency of the litigation for six years, and in view of the fact that considerable time is taken at the admission stage in this petition after issuance of initial notice and some time is bound to be taken for preparing the new lists, the request is declined. .