JUDGMENT P.A. Mohammed, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment of the learned Single Judge in O. P. No. 315 of 1986. The above writ petition has been filed challenging Ext. P-3 Award passed by the first respondent - Labour Court, Quilon in I. D. No. 41of 1980. The appellant before us is the General Secretary of the Kerala State Cooperative Bank Employees Association, Trivandrum. 2. The following issues were referred to for adjudication by the Labour Court by the Government under S.10(1)(c) and (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (i) Promotion of non graduate Clerks. (ii) Promotion of Typists. (iii) Seniority of Sri M. M. George, Accounts Officer, Sri K. Murukanandan Pillai, Clerk Grade II, Smt. M. S. Thankamani Ammal, Typist and Sri K. Krishna Pillai, Care Taker. Out of the above three issues, in this writ appeal we are only concerned with the second issue regarding the promotion of Typists. While discussing this common issue, the promotion of Typist K. Thankamani Ammal came up for consideration before the Labour Court. On this issue the Labour Court found that Thankamani Ammal is entitled to get promotion as Junior Assistant from April 1977 when she acquired the prescribed qualification and for subsequent promotion to higher posts in accordance with occurrence of vacancies. However, there was an observation by the Labour Court to the effect that the relative seniority of Typists would be the date of their acquiring the necessary qualification, or 1981 on which date the recommendation of the committee was accepted by the Government whichever is later. However, the Labour Court said that from 1974 onwards graduates alone were recruited in the Bank's service and as such Typists could be given the right to exercise their option as and when they acquire the prescribed qualification of a University degree and have put in five years service as Typist. The learned Judge finally observed that the denial of the request of Thankamani Ammal for promotion in the year 1977 was therefore, unjust and inequitable. This inequity was removed by the Labour Court by giving her a notional promotion from April 1977. The learned Judge further observed that the Labour Court had made adequate safeguards' relating to seniority so as not to upset the promotions already made. This inequity was removed by the Labour Court by giving her a notional promotion from April 1977. The learned Judge further observed that the Labour Court had made adequate safeguards' relating to seniority so as not to upset the promotions already made. In that view of the matter the directions given by the Labour Court as to the promotion to Thankamani Ammal were confirmed by the learned Single Judge. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant seriously attacked the finding of the learned Judge giving notional promotion to Thankamani Ammal from 1977. According to him this can be done only from 1st July 1982, that is to say, the date of acceptance of the report of the committee. In this context certain relevant facts are necessary to be restated. Thankamani Ammal was appointed as Clerk cum Typist on 9th June 1969 and was confirmed in that post on 23rd June 1971. On 15th October 1971, she opted for the post of Typist and accepting her option, she was appointed as Typist. She completed seven years of service in the Bank in the year 1976 and thereafter she made a representation to the Bank claiming promotion as Junior Assistant in the general cadre under Regulation.28(h) of the Staff Regulations. In the year 1977 she acquired B. A. degree. On acquiring the qualification she claimed promotion as Junior Assistant. She was not given promotion because she had opted for the post of Typist. Two other similarly situated persons, R. Krishnamoorthy and K. Velappan Pillai were given promotion as Junior Assistants. She asserted that is they could be given promotion as Junior Assistants there was no reason at all for denying promotion to her. The grievance of Thankamani Ammal is pointedly directed against the Kerala State Cooperative Bank Limited and the appellant herein is only interested on the common questions. Thankamani Ammal was examined by the Labour Court as W.W. 2. She in definite terms deposed before court that though she became eligible for promotion as Junior Assistant in the general cadre she was not given such promotion only because she had opted to become a Typist. It is her case that the options are made for certain benefits and not for permanent disadvantage. She in definite terms deposed before court that though she became eligible for promotion as Junior Assistant in the general cadre she was not given such promotion only because she had opted to become a Typist. It is her case that the options are made for certain benefits and not for permanent disadvantage. When she acquired B. A. degree qualification in the year 1977, she is entitled to be promoted as Junior Assistant and such promotion cannot be denied only because she has opted to be a Typist in the year 1971. Therefore the notional promotion given to her from April 1977 cannot be said to be unjust and unreasonable. 4. It is apt to be observed in this context that two above named persons similarly situated and who entered service as Typists were given promotion as Junior Assistants. What this court is concerned is when promotions had been given to Krishnamoorthy and Velappan Pillai, why such promotion be denied to Thankamani Ammal who is similarly placed. She is entitled to get equal opportunity for promotion. In other words, equal justice shall not be denied to her by the Tribunal while making the industrial adjudication. The equal justice is part of the concept of social justice. It would be idle for any party to suggest that industrial adjudication can or should ignore the claims of social justice in dealing with industrial disputes. [See J. K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Ltd. v. Labour Appellate Tribunal of India 1963 (2) LLJ 436. In what manner the Industrial Tribunal should act in dealing with such questions has been clearly laid down. Wide discretion has been conferred on Industrial Tribunals in dealing with individual cases of employees in consonance with the principles of social justice. After reading the Award in toto, we are satisfied that the Labour Court has decided the issue in consideration of the principles of social justice. The learned Judge has correctly and properly appreciated the background of the case and thus the finding of the Labour Court on the point under discussion has been sustained. We do not see any sufficient ground to interfere with the Judgment of the learned Judge. The appeal is dismissed.