JUDGMENT : D.S. SINHA, J. 1. Heard Sri V.B. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioning employer M/s. Swadeshi Cotton Mills Kanpur and Sri Rajesh Tewari learned Counsel representing the workman-Respondent Sri Hridaya Narain, at length and in detail. 2. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the award dated 26th April, 1984 rendered by the presiding Officer, Labour Court-III, Kanpur, the Respondent No. 1, in Adjudication Case No. 129 of 1981, registered upon a reference made by the State Government u/s 4-K of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 3. The controversy referred to the Respondent No. 1 was, in substance, whether the denial of promotion to the workman on the post of Weaving Supervisor was proper and legal. It has been found by the Respondent No. 1 that non-promotion of the workman to the post of Supervisor is improper and illegal. On this finding, a direction has been issued by the Respondent No. 1 to promote the workman on the post of Supervisor with effect from 1st April, 1984 and to pay him the emoluments payable to the holder of the post of Supervisor. 4. Sri Singh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, assails the award on two grounds: (a) that the reference leading to the award was bad in as much as the cause of the workman was not espoused by the union of workmen and (b) that the Labour Court committed an error of law apparent on the face of record by interfering in the matter of promotion which falls exclusively within the province of functions of the management of petitioning-employer. 5. In answer to the contentions raised on behalf of the Petitioner, Sri Tewari, learned Counsel representing the workman, submits that the cause leading to the reference u/s 4-K of the Act was, as a matter of fact, sponsored by the Union of workmen of the petitioning employer. Further submission of Sri Tewari is that the rule that the Labour Court should desist from interfering in the matter of promotion is not absolute. According to him, the Labour Court did not err in interfering with the discretion of the management of the petitioning employer with regard to the promotion of the workman 6. Further submission of Sri Tewari is that the rule that the Labour Court should desist from interfering in the matter of promotion is not absolute. According to him, the Labour Court did not err in interfering with the discretion of the management of the petitioning employer with regard to the promotion of the workman 6. To support his first submisson Sri Singh places reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India rendered in the case of Workmen of Dharampal Premchand (Saughandhi) vs. Dharampal Premchand (Saughandhi), AIR 1966 SC 182 . The submission of Sri Singh that if the cause is not espoused by the union of the workmen of the employer or, in the absence of union, by a sufficient number of workmen, the reference thereof would be bad, is well founded. 7. But, in the instant case the cause was in fact espoused by the union of the workmen of the employer. Annexure-II to the petition is the written statement filed on behalf of the workmen, In the array of the parties given in It the workmen through Suti Mill Mazdoor Union, 109/395, Jawahar Nagar, Kanpur, are shown to be the Petitioners On its second page the written statement is described to be "Written Statement of Suti Mill Mazdoor Union on behalf of the workmen of the concern." At the end, before verification, the written statement is signed by one S.K. Srivastava, it. Secretary, Suti Mill Mazdoor Union, Kanpur, Authorised Representative. Further, in the array of the parties in the writ petition before this Court the Petitioner itself has shown the workman to be under the care of Suti Hill Mazdoor Union, All these things, taken together, go to show that the matter was undoubtedly espoused by the union of the workmen of the petitioning-employer. Thus the first submission made on behalf of the Petitioner fails. 8. Now comes the second ground of attack, namely, interference by the Respondent No. 1 in the matter of promotion of the workman which, according to Sri Singh, lies within the exclusive province of the functions of the management of the petitioning-employer. To buttress his submission, Sri Singh places reliance upon the decision of the; Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Management of Brooke Bond India (P) Ltd. vs. Workmen, AIR 1966 SC 668 . 9. To buttress his submission, Sri Singh places reliance upon the decision of the; Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Management of Brooke Bond India (P) Ltd. vs. Workmen, AIR 1966 SC 668 . 9. In Paragraph 4 of the above decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus: ......Generally speaking promotion it a management function; but it may be recognised that there may be occasions when a tribunal may have to interfere with promotions made by the management where it is felt that persons superseded have been so superseded on account of mala-fides or victimisation, Even as after a finding of mala-fides or victimisation, it is not the function of a tribunal to consider the merits of various employees itself and then decide whom to promote or whom not to promote. If any industrial tribunal finds that promotions have been made which are unjustified on the ground of mala-fides or of victimistation, the proper course for it to take is to set aside the promotions and ask the management to consider the cases of superseded employees and decide for itself whom to promote, except of course the person whose promotion has been set aside by the tribunal. 10. The legal position emerging from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Management of Brooke Bond India (P) Ltd. (supra) is that the matter of promotion is a managerial function of the employer and the same cannot be interfered with by the labour courts. Of course, to this general rule two exceptions have been conceived of. The twin exceptions are mala-fides and victimisation. Before interfering in the matter of promotion it has to be found categorically that the employer has denied promotion to the workman either with mala-fide intention or with a view to victimise him. In the absence of a finding of either mala-fides or victimisation, there will be no jurisdiction to interfere in the matter of promotion of the workman. 11. In the instant case, there is no finding recorded by the Respondent No. 1 that the denial of promotion to the workman was either mala-fide or with a view to victimise him. In the absence of a finding of either mala-fides or victimisation, there will be no jurisdiction to interfere in the matter of promotion of the workman. 11. In the instant case, there is no finding recorded by the Respondent No. 1 that the denial of promotion to the workman was either mala-fide or with a view to victimise him. In the absence of such a finding, the Respondent No. 1 could not have interfered with in the matter of promotion of the workman to the post of Weaving Supervisor and, in doing so, he clearly over-stepped the jurisdiction vested in him. Thus, the impugned award clearly suffers from an error of law apparent on the face of record. 12. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned award dated 26th April, 1984, copy where-of is Annexure 'VII' to the writ petition, is quashed There will be no order as to costs.