JUDGMENT H.N. Seth, J. - By this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner Messrs. Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. prays that the award dated 12th May 1976 made by the Labour Court (II) Kanpur, published in the U.P. Gazette dated 2nd Oct. 1976 be quashed. 2. By means of a notification dated 2nd Aug. 1973 the State Government, acting under S. 4(k) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, referred the following dispute between the petitioner and its workmen for adjudication to the Labour Court (II) Kanpur:- Whether the employers should be required to give to the employees mentioned in. the schedule the designation of comptometer machine operator-cum-clerk ? If so from what date and with what particulars ? 3. The six clerks in respect of whom the aforesaid dispute had been referred were - Sahdeo Prasad Dixit, Sri Krishna Saraswat, I.U. Ahmad, Shiv Ghulam Sharma. Kamlakant Tripathi, Shyam Sunder Avasthi. 4. The six workmen were designated as junior clerks in the petitioner's establishment known as Messrs. Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. and were drawing salary in the pay scale of Rs. 105-313.75. According to them, they were working in the Provident Fund, pay-sheet-stores and sales departments and apart from clerical work they were also required to operate Comptometer machines which was being used for carrying out calculations by way of addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. The employers had neither designated them according to the nature of work taken from them, nor did they pay them salary commensurate with their work. Over and above their salary as clerk they were being paid merely a sum of Rs. 7/- per month as allowance which was wholly inadequate. They alleged that some clerks in the establishment were working as card punch operators and machine operators and the employers were paying them salary in the pay scale of Rs. 215.50 to 699.25P and Rs. 400/- to Rs. 900/- respectively. They therefore claimed that they should also be paid salary in the pay scale of Rs. 400/- to Rs. 900/- with effect from 28th March 1973 when the notice for this purpose was sent to the employers and should be designated as comptometer operator-cum-clerk. 5. According to the employers, the six workmen were junior clerks whose salary had been fixed under the orders of the State Government. 400/- to Rs. 900/- with effect from 28th March 1973 when the notice for this purpose was sent to the employers and should be designated as comptometer operator-cum-clerk. 5. According to the employers, the six workmen were junior clerks whose salary had been fixed under the orders of the State Government. The clerks were required to operate comptometer machines and were being paid extra allowance at the rate of Rs. 7/- per month. They claimed that working of a comptometer was a part of duty of those clerks whose main and principal work was of clerical nature. As working on a comptometer did not involve technical skill no question of giving a separate designation to the six workmen arose. They also denied that in their establishment there was any post either of a card punch operator or that of a machine operator. So far as Sri Krishna Saraswat was concerned, he was working in the dyeing department and not in pay-sheet section where he was not being required to operate a comptometer machine. 6. During the course of hearing the Labour Court appointed one Sri Satish Chandra Gupta as Commissioner to find out the position in regard to the persons working on comptometer machines in various other textile mills at Kanpur. Sri Satish Chandra Gupta submitted a report according to which Comptometer machines had been set up in the following seven textile mills of Kanpur: (1) Messrs. Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Kanpur. (2) Messrs. J.K. Cotton and Spg. and Weaving Mills. (3) Messrs. J. K. Manufacturers Ltd. (4) Messrs. Elgin Mills Co. Ltd. Mill no. 1 (5) Messrs. Elgin Mills Co. Ltd. Mill no. 2 (6) Messrs. Muir Mills National Textile Corporation. (7) National Textile Corp. New Victoria Mills Branch, Kanpur. 7. Remaining two textile Mills of the Kanpur viz. Messrs. Atherton West & Co. Ltd. and Lakshmi Ratan Cotton Mills Kanpur were closed and it had not been possible for him to visit those mills. The Commissioner reported that the persons working on comptometer machines in various textile mills, primarily belong to clerical class and had not been given any separate designation. However, whenever a junior clerk was being employed on comptometer machine he was being paid salary applicable to a senior clerk without fixing any designation or pay scale for such worker. The Commissioner reported that the persons working on comptometer machines in various textile mills, primarily belong to clerical class and had not been given any separate designation. However, whenever a junior clerk was being employed on comptometer machine he was being paid salary applicable to a senior clerk without fixing any designation or pay scale for such worker. The Commissioner further reported that the persons operating comptometer machines in the establishments visited by him were being paid salary in various pay scales ranging between Rs. 60/- to 268/- and Rs. 150/- to Rs. 400/-. In most of the establishments, comptometer machines were being worked between half to three hours per day. In very few establishments was there work for full eight hours. According to him any clerk, with very little effort and without any special training or educational qualification, could operate a comptometer machine. 8. In its award the Labour Court noticed the evidence of the workmen and the employer and came to the conclusion that except for Sri Krishna Saraswat who was - then working in the dyeing department, the remaining workmen were operating comptometer machines for about six hours in a day. It pointed out that the employers' own witnesses had admitted that for fully working a comptometer machine its operator had to undergo a training course, and that only simple calculation by way of addition above could be carried on by a new man. The witness further admitted that in the establishment in question all types of calculations were being made on comptometer machines, although the incidence of calculation by way of addition was slightly more. Accordingly, the Tribunal found that there was material difference between the nature of work of a clerk and that of a workman who operated the comptometer machine. In this view, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the workmen other than Sri Krishna Saraswat should be designated as comptometer machine operator-cum-clerk. 9. As in the opinion of the Labour Court a clerk could net properly operate a comptometer machine without first undergoing a training course, it held that it would be fair that such worker should be paid salary in a grade higher than that applicable to the clerical staff. 10. While fixing the pay scale the Labour Court observed that in the case of Messrs. 10. While fixing the pay scale the Labour Court observed that in the case of Messrs. British India Corporation Kanpur, Woollen Mills Branch, also the work of operating comptometer machine was being taken from clerks who were getting the pay in a scale similar to that which was applicable to clerks in petitioner's establishment in so far as it related to minimum wages and payment of dearness allowance, etc. The Workmen of British India Corporation who were working on comptometer machine had raised an industrial dispute (dispute No. 72 of 1971) with regard to their designation and pay scale. That dispute was referred to the Labour Court Kanpur for adjudication which ruled that such workmen should be designated as clerk-cum-comptometer machine operator and paid salary in the pay scale of Rs. 130/- to Rupees 352/-. As the workmen of petitioners' establishment were situated similarly to the workmen of British India Corporation, there was no justification in refusing them pay in the scale of Rs. 130/- to Rs. 352. In the result the Labour Court directed that the workmen excepting Sri Krishna Saraswat be designated as comptometer machine operator-cum-clerk and be paid a salary in the time scale of Rs. 130/-. to Rs. 352. It also issued certain incidental directions for fixing their salary in the aforesaid pay scale. 11. So far as the finding recorded by the Labour Court that the work of operating comptometer machine in petitioner's establishment is different from that of a clerk and that a clerk cannot fully operate such a machine unless he undergoes training for it is concerned, it is a finding of fact recorded on the basis of evidence produced in the case. The petitioners cannot question the correctness of this finding in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. On this finding, no exception can be taken to the conclusion of the Labour Court that the clerks who operate comptometer machine should be designated as comptometer operators-cum-clerks and should be paid salary in a pay scale higher than that is applicable to clerks. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, questioned the propriety of Labour Court's order directing that pay of the workmen in question should be fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 130/-to 352/- as had been awarded in the case of operators of comptometer machines of the woollen mills branch of the British India Corporation. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, questioned the propriety of Labour Court's order directing that pay of the workmen in question should be fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 130/-to 352/- as had been awarded in the case of operators of comptometer machines of the woollen mills branch of the British India Corporation. He contended that the Labour Court had issued such a direction merely on the basis of an award given by it in the case of Woollen Mills Branch of the British India Corporation (Industrial Dispute Case No. 72 of 1971). According to him, the Labour Court erred in relying upon that award for the following reasons:- (1) While fixing pay scale of workers, the Labour Court had to take into consideration the pay scale applicable to similar workmen employed by similar industries in Kanpur. Woollen Mills is an industry different from a textile mill industry, which cannot for the purposes of determining the pay scale in which the wages of a workman in textile industry should be fixed, be treated as a comparable industry. (2) The very award relied upon by the Labour court in this regard was under challenge before this Court in a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution (Writ Petn. no. 6710 of 1972 (All)) which petition has since been allowed on 28-10-1977 and the award has been set aside. In the circumstances the very basis of fixing the salary of the workmen in the pay scale of Rs. 130/- to 352/-, has disappeared and the award cannot be allowed to stand. 13. In order to support his submissions learned counsel for the petitioner moved an application on 21st November 77 and prayed that he should be permitted to place before the court facts in this connection as also the judgment of the High Court D/- 28-10-1977 rendered in writ petn. no. 6710 of 1972 (All) by which it had quashed the award made by the Labour Court (II) Kanpur in Industrial Dispute Case No. 72 of 1971. 14. Learned counsel for the respondents objected to the reception of the judgment given in writ petition no. no. 6710 of 1972 (All) by which it had quashed the award made by the Labour Court (II) Kanpur in Industrial Dispute Case No. 72 of 1971. 14. Learned counsel for the respondents objected to the reception of the judgment given in writ petition no. 6710 of 1972 (All) primarily on the ground that it will amount to reception of new material which was not there when the Labour Court made its award and that such a material cannot be taken into consideration while dealing with a petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari. According to him the validity of the award has to be tested only on the basis of material that was available to the labour Court at the time of making of the award. 15. Art. 226 of the Constitution as it stands after amendment made by the Constitution 42 Amendment Act 1976, empowers the High Court to issue writs for the following purposes only and for no other purpose: (a) For the enforcement of any of the right conferred by the provisions of part III; or (b) for the redress of any injury of a substantial nature by reason of the contravention of any other provision of the constitution or any provision of any enactment or ordinance or any order, rule, regulation, bye-law or other instrument made thereunder; or (c) for the redress of any injury by reason of any illegality in any proceedings by or before any authority under any provision referred to in sub-cl. (b) where such illegality has resulted in substantial failure of justice. It is not the case of the petitioner that the impugned award has the effect of contravening rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution. He has also not been able to show that while making the award, the Labour Court has contravened any provision of the Constitution or that of any enactment or ordinance, order, rule, regulation, bye-law or other instrument made thereunder. The case therefore does not fall either under cl. (a) or (b) of Art. 226 mentioned above. If at all, the 'petitioners' grievance relates to some illegality alleged to have been committed by the Labour Court as envisaged by cl. (c) mentioned above. Redress for an injury as contemplated by cl. The case therefore does not fall either under cl. (a) or (b) of Art. 226 mentioned above. If at all, the 'petitioners' grievance relates to some illegality alleged to have been committed by the Labour Court as envisaged by cl. (c) mentioned above. Redress for an injury as contemplated by cl. (c) mentioned above, can be granted in a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution only where the illegality complained of has resulted in substantial failure of justice. Even assuming that as alleged by the petitioner the Labour Court was not justified in fixing the wages of the workmen in the pay scale of Rs. 130/- to 352/- merely on the basis of the award given by it in Industrial Dispute Case No. 72 of 1971, in as much as the industry run by British India Corporation in that case was not comparable to the Textile Mill run by the petitioner, and also because that award has since been set aside by the High Court by its judgment D/- 28-10-1977 in writ petition no. 6710 of 1972 (All), it will not be possible for this Court to interfere with the impugned award unless it comes to the conclusion that there has been substantial failure of justice. Accordingly, we proceed to examine as to whether or not the award in this case has resulted in a substantial failure of justice. 16. A perusal of the impugned award shows that the clerical staff in petitioner's establishment was drawing salary in the pay scale of Rs. 105/- to 313.75. As already indicated the Tribunal has found that the workman in question who were required to operate comptometer machines were to do work which was different from clerical work and that such workmen deserved a salary higher than that of a clerk. This is a finding of fact which cannot be interfered with in a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the salary of the concerned workmen had to be fixed in a scale higher than the pay scale of Rs. 105-313.75. The report of the Commissioner clearly shews that in other textile mills at Kanpur (it cannot be denied that those textile mills were engaged in an industry similar to that of the petitioner) pay scales applicable to similar workmen ranged between Rs. 60/- to Rupees 268 and Rupees 150/- to Rupees 400/-. 105-313.75. The report of the Commissioner clearly shews that in other textile mills at Kanpur (it cannot be denied that those textile mills were engaged in an industry similar to that of the petitioner) pay scales applicable to similar workmen ranged between Rs. 60/- to Rupees 268 and Rupees 150/- to Rupees 400/-. Accordingly, the salary of the workmen working on comptometer machines in petitioners establishment had to be fixed somewhere between the pay scale ranging between Rs. 105/- to 313.75, and Rs. 150/- to Rupees 400/-. Considering that in the case of petitioner's establishment, the workmen in question had to operate comptometer machines for about six hours, out of total of eight hours per day, it cannot be said that in fixing the salary of the concerned workmen in the pay scale of Rs. 130/- to 352/- which lies almost mid-way in the pay scales of Rs. 105/- to Rs. 313.75 and Rs. 150/- to Rs. 400/- has resulted in any substantial failure of justice. It is therefore not necessary for us to go into the question whether or not the Tribunal has committed any illegality in relying upon the award given by the Labour Court in Industrial Dispute case No. 72 of 1971 specially when it has since been set aside. In the view which we have taken, the fact that the award made by the Labour Court Kanpur in Industrial Dispute Case No. 72 of 1971 has been set aside by the High Court is not material and the application for amendment filed by the petitioner on 21-11-77 deserves to be rejected. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion we find no merit in this petition, which is dismissed with costs.