BHANWAR SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 5. 10. 1995, passed by the Deputy Labour commissioner, Lucknow. Further, a writ in the nature of mandamus has also been prayed for by the petitioner seeking a command to the opposite party No. 2 to promote him in the Artisan grade A with effect from 1. 4. 1991 or 1. 4. 1995. ( 2 ) THE petitioners case is that he was appointed by the Management of the opposite party No. 2, namely, Scooters India Limited as Telephone Mechanic (Skilled grade) in the year 1976 and since then he has been working on the same post in the same grade. In the year 1979. an agreement was arrived at between the Management of the Scooters India Limited and the Labour union and it was settled that there would be five artisan grades of the labourers to be designated as grades A. B, C, D and E and all the workmen would be considered for promotion in the upgraded categories with effect from 1. 4. 1979 on the basis of test and interview. It was also settied between the aforesaid parties that the evaluation of the work and performance of the labourers would be made without bias and prejudice on the basis of prescribed criteria and in accordance with the guidelines but ignoring any such criteria or guidelines, the Management of the Scooters India Limited acted upon the line of nepotism and promoted only such labourers who were the blue-eyed boys of the officers of the Management and thereby caused serious prejudice to some employees including the petitioner as they exposed the lapses of the management and resorted to agitational method including strike with a view to secure justice and fulfilment of their demands. In spite of the fact that the petitioner was the lone Telephone Skilled mechanic in the factory of the Scooters India Limited until 31. 3. 1979. other labourers who were not only junior to him but who also did not fulfil the criteria of being a Telephone Mechanic were promoted to the artisan grades a and b. This discrimination caused serious prejudice to the cause of the petitioner as he was deprived of his right to get promotion on the higher grade. 3. 1979. other labourers who were not only junior to him but who also did not fulfil the criteria of being a Telephone Mechanic were promoted to the artisan grades a and b. This discrimination caused serious prejudice to the cause of the petitioner as he was deprived of his right to get promotion on the higher grade. As a matter of fact, the Management acted in a biased manner with all mala fides on the part of the officers. In these circumstances, the petitioner was obliged to raise an industrial dispute and, therefore, pleaded his cause with the U. P. Government. The petitioner was found favour with the Government and accordingly, a reference was made for settlement of the dispute to the labour Tribunal. On having heard both the parties, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, lucknow, pronounced his award on 27. 2. 1993 and directed the Scooters India Limited to create a post within three months in either grade b or a and consider the petitioners claim for promotion to the said post with effect from 1. 4. 1979. ( 3 ) THE opposite parly No. 2, in compliance of the said direction, conducted a test in which the petitioner appeared and on the basis of his performance in the said test as also the interview, he was found unsuitable. In fact, the decision of the Test and Interview Committee was tainted with mala fides. The petitioner raised several points in his affidavit filed before the opposite party No. 1 but neither the Personnel Manager of the Scooters India Limited replied to the allegations levelled by the petitioner in his counter-affidavit nor the Deputy Labour Commissioner, lucknow, pronounced a reasoned finding. The claim of the petitioner was dismissed in limine by virtue of the order dated 5. 10. 1995 (Annexure-8 ). It was in these circumstances that the petitioner was obliged to file this writ petition for the writs of certiorari and mandamus as indicated earlier. ( 4 ) THE Chief Personnel Manager of the Scooters India Limited, namely, Sri S. A. H. Rizvi filed his counter- affidavit asserting therein that the facts pleaded by the petitioner were incorrect and misconceived. It was in these circumstances that the petitioner was obliged to file this writ petition for the writs of certiorari and mandamus as indicated earlier. ( 4 ) THE Chief Personnel Manager of the Scooters India Limited, namely, Sri S. A. H. Rizvi filed his counter- affidavit asserting therein that the facts pleaded by the petitioner were incorrect and misconceived. In compliance of the award of the Labour Court in Adjudication Case No. 129 of 1983, the petitioner was tested and interviewed and since he was not found eligible as compared to others, he was not considered to be fit for promotion. The petitioner was given one more opportunity to appear before the Departmental Promotion Committee in April, 1995, but he did not respond and since he failed to appear for the test and interview, he was not considered for promotion. The petitioner was bound by the terms of the Memorandum of Settlement which provided five grades of artisans and as he had not challenged the said settlement before the industrial Tribunal, he was stopped from questioning the veracity of the said settlement. As regards the test and Interview of the petitioner and other eligible candidates, Sri Rizvi asserted that the performance of the petitioner as compared to Sri Yogendra Lal and Sri R. Kumar was inferior and, therefore, they were upgraded. Sri Rizvi further denied that any favour was extended to those who were promoted. The petitioner himself is to blame as he did not appear before the Departmental Promotion Committee for test and interview held in April, 1995. On the basis of these allegations, the Chief Personnel Manager, Sri S. A. H. Rizvi pleaded for dismissal of the writ petition. ( 5 ) I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. ( 6 ) THE main grievance of the petitioner is that the opposite party No. 1 has summarily dismissed his application in which he has prayed for compliance of the award given in Adjudication Case no. 129 of 1983. The petitioners contention before the Deputy Labour Commissioner was that the latter had, vide his order. Annexure-8. rejected the formers representation and without discussing the objections raised by the petitioner dismissed his claim. In this context, it would be relevant first to refer to the award and then to the impugned order, Annexure-8. A copy of the award dated 27. 2. Annexure-8. rejected the formers representation and without discussing the objections raised by the petitioner dismissed his claim. In this context, it would be relevant first to refer to the award and then to the impugned order, Annexure-8. A copy of the award dated 27. 2. 1993 is Annexure-3 on record. This award pertains to the claims of four labourers including the petitioner, Sri Laxmi Narain Tiwari. His case has been discussed on internal pages 10 to 12. The finding In regard to the petitioners contention is at page 12. The conclusion drawn on the basis of the findings was that the matter of Sri Tiwari had not been evaluated with impartiality and the evaluation of the Telephone Department had been deliberately Ignored by not creating posts in a and b categories and this partisan attitude has entailed in a serious prejudice to the petitioner. It was also observed in the award that there was no complaint against the petitioner although he had been working as a Skilled Telephone mechanic since 1976. Accordingly, the opposite party No. 2 was directed to upgrade at least one post of Telephone Mechanic in higher categories designated as a or b and promote the petitioner subject to his suitability. ( 7 ) IT was in pursuance of the aforesaid direction of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court. Lucknow. that the Management of the opposite party No. 2 conducted a test of the petitioner and also held his interview and found him unsuitable. The petitioners contention is that the entire process of test/interview suffers from serious bias and prejudice and the petitioner was subjected to victimisation in the aforesaid process. In his representation filed before the Deputy Labour commissioner, the petitioner had clearly asserted that the Management of the Scooters India limited had deliberately withheld the papers pertaining to his test and Interview and if produced before the Tribunal, it would have exposed the partisan attitude of the authorities. Not only this but it was also recited in his representation by the petitioner that the date of test and interview was indicated by the Scooters India Limited as one, i. e. 30. 8. 1993 white it was not so. The two dates were different. Not only this but it was also recited in his representation by the petitioner that the date of test and interview was indicated by the Scooters India Limited as one, i. e. 30. 8. 1993 white it was not so. The two dates were different. The Scooters India Limited, as was supplemented further by the petitioner, had not produced before the Tribunal the documents pertaining to the test and interview with a view to screening the reality of the test and interview having been conducted on two different dates. According to the petitioner, his test was conducted on 30. 8. 1993 while his interview was held on 3. 9. 1993. The Deputy Labour Commissioner has totally ignored this allegation. It was neither referred to nor discussed. Obviously thus, a very pertinent objection raised by the petitioner regarding veracity of the test and interview had been ignored by the Deputy Labour commissioner and this has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. The allegation of the petitioner reflected on the conduct of the Manager of the Scooters India Limited who had submitted his affidavit asserting therein a common date of the test and interview. If this allegation had been closely scrutinised, the Deputy Labour Commissioner would have arrived at a definite finding as to whether the claim of the petitioner had any substance or not and if it had been found that the petitioners contention carried some weight, the Management of the Scooters india Limited would have been issued fresh directions to conduct the petitioners test and interview afresh. Obviously thus, the Deputy Labour Commissioner fell in grievous error by dismissing the petitioners claim by passing a sketchy order, a copy of which is Annexure-8 on record. A perusal of this order would reveal that the Deputy Labour Commissioner simply relied upon the affidavit of Sri S. A. H. Rizvi, Annexure-5 in which Sri Rizvi has averred that the petitioner was found unsuitable by the Selection Committee. Sri Rizvi did not give details of the test and interview nor filed any documentary evidence in support of the said averment. Apparently, the process of filing the affidavit of Sri Rizvi and the order. Annexure-8. passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner on the basis of the short counter-affidavit was a short slip exercise. Sri Rizvi did not give details of the test and interview nor filed any documentary evidence in support of the said averment. Apparently, the process of filing the affidavit of Sri Rizvi and the order. Annexure-8. passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner on the basis of the short counter-affidavit was a short slip exercise. It is needless to observe that the Labour Laws are meant for the benefit of the labourers and protection of their rights and interest from the vindictive attitude of the Management of a factory. ( 8 ) IN the case in hand, the petitioners contention was that he was the sole Skilled Telephone mechanic working in the Scooters India Limited. Unnao, since 1976. This fact was not disputed by the Management of the factory. A doubt may, therefore, arise on the bona fides of the management as to how the workers junior to him who were not employed as Telephone mechanic were given promotion in the higher grades ignoring the claim of the petitioner. Apart from that, the contention of the petitioner is that he had fallen prey to the victimisation being conducted upon him by the Management with a view to teach him a lesson of his having raised his voice during strike against the Management. The Deputy Labour Commissioner has not at all delved upon all these allegations which pose a serious question on the bona fide functioning of the Management of the Scooters India Limited. ( 9 ) HAVING regard to all what has been discussed above, I hold that the impugned order, annexure-8. passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner. Lucknow, is arbitrary and unreasonable. ( 10 ) ACCORDINGLY, this writ petition succeeds. The impugned order, Annexure-8, is set aside and a writ of certiorari is issued to this effect. The Deputy Labour Commissioner is commanded to decide the petitioners claim afresh and give a categorical finding keeping in view the Interest of the petitioner who is a Skilled Telephone Mechanic in the employment of the Scooters India limited and if need be, after Issuing directions to the authorities to hold a fresh suitability test of the petitioner and award him his dues. .