JUDGMENT Banerji, J :- These two writ petitions are directed against a common Award of the Labour Court at Agra and can be conveniently decided by a common judgment These two writ petitions were heard together. 2. M./s. Swadesh Cotton Mills Company Limited, Kanpur, hereinafter referred to as the Company, has challenged the Award of the Labour Court dated 31st Aug., 1974, whereby Sri Jagdish Prasad, a substitute peon in the general shift, was directed to be made permanent peon with effect from Ist July, 1972. 3. In writ petition No. 2698 of 1975, Brij Kishore, another substitute peon in the company has challenged this very award claiming that Jagdish Prasad was not entitled to be made permanent in preference to Brij Kishore. Thus, in both the petitions the challenge is to the Award of the labour court that Jagdish Prasad was not entitled to be made a permanent peon. The argument in both the petitions was that Jagdish Prasad was not the senior most among the substitute peons and there were other peons, who were senior to him and as such the Award in favour of Jagdish Prasad was bad in law. Learned counsel for the petitioners in both the petitions contended that the labour court had misread relevant piece of evidence and drawn conclusions which were unwarranted and arrived at a finding which was wholly perverse. Having perused the material on record and heard learned counsel for the parties, we find force in this contention. 4. It is not in dispute that there were a number of peons employed in the Company. According to the statement of E.W. 1, Sri Durga -Buz Singh, a senior clerk in the establishment section, the Company employed a number of peons in the main office from Jan. 1973 to Nov. 1973. According to his statement 27 or 28 peons were required in the main office. In Mar., 1971 there were 14 permanent, 17 substitute and two temporary peons in the main office. He further stated that in April 1971 there were seven peons in Grade I and eleven peons in Grade II among the substitutes and he named them also. The fact that the substitute peons belonged to two grades-I & II, was not pleaded in the written statement filed on behalf of the Company. He further stated that in April 1971 there were seven peons in Grade I and eleven peons in Grade II among the substitutes and he named them also. The fact that the substitute peons belonged to two grades-I & II, was not pleaded in the written statement filed on behalf of the Company. The Labour court has relied upon the statement of Durga Bux singh to hold that there were seven substitute peons in Grade I and eleven in Grade II; Jagdish Prasad was the seventh name in Grade I and Brij Kishore was last name among the substitute peons in Grade II. On the basis of this statement the Labour Court held that Jagdish Prasad was senior to all eleven substitute peons in Grade II. No such statement had been made by Durga Bux Singh, nor was any other evidence referred to by the Learned counsel for the respondent in this respect. The Labour Court took the view that Jagdish Prasad was senior to all the eleven substitute peons of Grade II including Brij Kishore. He further observed that Jagdish Prasad was the senior most among the substitute peons of Grade I. This finding is based on no evidence at all. Durga Bux Singh has not made any such statement. As a matter of fact, in his opening statement Durga Prasad stated that there were four persons, namely, Ram Khelawan, Moti Lal, Bhola Nath and Bihari, who were senior to Jagdish Prasad. They were all appointed earlier than Jagdish Prasad. It is, therefore, clear from the above that the finding of the Labour Court that Jagdish Prasad was senior to all the other substitute peons is based on no evidence and in any event is based on misreading of evidence. 5. Reference may also be made to Ann. 9 to the writ petition which contains a list of permanent, temporary and substitute peons. It was stated that this list had been prepared in order of seniority and had been produced at the time of evidence and the witness had stated on oath from the said list, but the Labour Court had altogether ignored the said list and the statement. It shows the date of appointment of various peons employed by the Company. It was stated that this list had been prepared in order of seniority and had been produced at the time of evidence and the witness had stated on oath from the said list, but the Labour Court had altogether ignored the said list and the statement. It shows the date of appointment of various peons employed by the Company. It also shows that Jagdish Prasad was appointed on 1st April, 1971 and there were six others who were appointed earlier than Jagdish Prasad, of these Ram Khelawan, Moti Lal, Bhola Nath and Bihari were senior to Jagdish Prasad. Thus, Jagdish Prasad was not the seniormost among the substitute peons. The finding of the Labour Court that Jagdish Prasad was the seniormost among the substitute peons is based on misreading of evidence. There being a manifest error of law, the Award of the Labour Court cannot be sustained and must be set aside. The writ petition No. 2699 of 1975 must therefore succeed. 6. In writ petition No. 2698 of 1975 Brij Kishore has prayed for the quashing of the Award of the Labour Court and has also claimed that he was senior to Jagdish Prasad and as such was entitled to be declared as permanent. Brij Kishore can have no right to claim for the quashing of the Award because he is not entitled to be declared as seniormost. As seen from the evidence of Durga Bux Singh, he was in Grade II whereas Jagdish Prasad was in Grade 1. Thus, he is not entitled to any. relief. The writ petition No. 2698 of 1975 must be dismissed. 7. In the result, therefore, the writ petition No. 2699 of 1975 is allowed and the Award dated 31st Aug. 1974 is quashed and set aside. The writ petition No. 2698 of 1975 is dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.