JUDGMENT Ravi S. Dhavon, J. - The present petition, on behalf of the Union of India is through the General Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi as the petitioner No. 1 and the Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Lucknow as the Petitioner No. 2. It is against the order of the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum-Labour Court, Kanpur. The order is dated 21-4-1987, and is appended as Annexure `1' to the writ petition. 2. The Union of India i.e., the General Manager, Northern Railway and the Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the Railways) are aggrieved by this order. The submission of Railways is that the order of the Labour Court, aforesaid, is not consistent with the regulations of the Northern Railway known as ; Rules regarding absorption of Medically Incapacitated Staff, 1965, referred hereinafter as the Regulation. 3. It is not in issue that the workman, Purshottam Chand, was an incapacitated employee who had changed the nature of his duties when he had been declared medically unfit as a Second Fireman with effect from 24-7-1972. It was as a consequence of the change of category, that the issue in the present writ petition has arisen. The workman moved an application under Section 33 (C) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 that the emoluments paid to him are not what he ought to receive and the monetary benefits to be received by him be computed in terms of money. 4. The Railways aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court, aforesaid, submits that the order contradicts Regulation 34 in reference to the medically incapacitated Staff. Before the order can be examined, it would be appropriate to notice Regulation 34. This regulation is reproduced below : "34. For permanent running staff, the fixation of pay will be made on the basic pay plus 50% pay in the case of those retaining prescribed scales of pay and 40% in the case of those on the Authorised scales of pay of the former post subject to such pay not exceeding the maximum of the scale of alternative appointment." 5. The contention of the Railways is that whatever emoluments may be determined for being paid to the workman concerned, it is clear from the regulation, aforesaid, that the pay scale cannot exceed the scale of the alternate appointment. The contention of the Railways is that whatever emoluments may be determined for being paid to the workman concerned, it is clear from the regulation, aforesaid, that the pay scale cannot exceed the scale of the alternate appointment. Alternative appointment, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, is the appointment to duty which the respondent workman received after he had been declared medically unfit on 24-7-72. From the record, it has been shown by the Railways that in the alternate appointment i.e., the subsequent appointment, the maximum scale of pay was Rs. 85. The Labour Court has virtually granted him a scale which is beyond the scale of alternative appointment. This is a manifest error apparent on the face of the record. 6. Thus, the order of the Labour Court dated 21-4-1987 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Labour Court, aforesaid, for a decision afresh. Upon remand, the Labour Court will ensure that its order is within the confines of the aforesaid Regulation 34. This Court further directs the Labour Court to render its decision within one month of a certified copy of this order being placed before it, by either party. 7. The petition is allowed. In the light of the directions made above, there will be no order on costs. 8. Learned counsel for the workman requested that a copy of this order be delivered within a weeks let this be so upon a requisite application being made.