JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition undr Articles 226 and 27 of the Constitution of India: has been filed by the petitioners on 14.3.2001 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the judgment and award dated 24.8.2000 (Annex. 12) passed by the respondent No. 1 Judge, Industrial Tribunal Bikaner by which respondent No. 2 Ganesh Ram was regularised in service with effect from 1.4.1982, be quashed and set aside. 2. The case of the petitioners as put forward by them in this writ petition is as follows: The respondent No. 2 Ganesh Ram was engaged as casual daily rated workman on 10.9.1979 and thereafter, on 31.5.1980 he was engaged as work-charged employee. The case of the petitioners is that so far as the grant of regular pay scale and regularisation of services of work-charged employees is concerned, the Vidyut Board has from time to time constituted Screening Committee for adjudging the suitability of the workmen who had completed two years of service and as per the recommendations of the Screening Committee, the incumbents and workmen are entitled to be given regularisation and regular pay scale against sanctioned posts.The further case of the petitioners is that so far as the respondent No. 2 Ganesh Ram is concerned, he has not completed two years of service as on 31.3.1982 and, therefore, there was no question of considering him for grant of regular pay scale by the Screening Committee constituted vide order Annex. 1 dated 26.9.1983 for the purpose of grant of regular pay scale and regularisation of services of those workmen who had completed two years of service as on 31.3.1982.It was further submitted by the petitioners that on 12.8.1987 a decision was taken by the erstwhile Board to review all such cases of those workmen who were either not present before the earlier Committee or were not found suitable. A copy of the order dated 12.8.1987 is marked as Annex. 2.It was further submitted by the petitioners that the respondent No. 2 was also called to appear before the Review Committee to consider his case for the grant of regular pay scale of Helper Gr. II after completion of two years of service as on 1.4.1982. A copy of the order dated 12.8.1987 is marked as Annex. 2.It was further submitted by the petitioners that the respondent No. 2 was also called to appear before the Review Committee to consider his case for the grant of regular pay scale of Helper Gr. II after completion of two years of service as on 1.4.1982. The respondent No. 2 appeared before the Review Committee on 17.9.1987 which submitted its report to the erstwhile Board but the respondent No. 2 was not found suitable for the purposes of regularisation and his case was considered and rejected by the Screening Committee. In this regard, an order was passed on 21.11.1987 showing the recommendations of the Screening Committee. A copy of the said order dated 21.11.1987 is marked as Annex. 3.Thereafter, the Screening Committee was again reconstituted vide order dated 2.3.1989 (Annex. 4) and the scrutiny was done by the said Screening Committee and in this regard, an order Annex. 5 dated 23.3.1989 was passed for screening of workers who have completed two years service on 31st March, 1983 or thereafter upto 31.3.1987, to adjudge their suitability for regularisation and grant of regular pay scale.The said Screening Committee found the respondent No. 2 suitable for grant of regular pay scale with effect from 1.4.1989 and thus, as per the decision of the said Screening Committee, the respondent No. 2 was given regular pay scale on the post of Helper Gr. II with effect from 1st April, 1989 vide order dated 28.4.1990, a copy of which is marked as Annex. 6.Since the respondent No. 2 was given regular pay scale with effect from 1st April, 1989 vide order dated 28.4.1990 (Annex. 6), therefore, aggrieved from that order, the respondent No. 2 preferred a writ petition before this Court being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3876/90, but this Court directed the respondent No. 2 to first approach the Labour Court.Thereafter, through Notification dated 6.9.1999, a reference was made to , the Industrial Tribunal, Bikaner under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1947") to the effect whether non-giving of benefit of regular pay scale to the respondent No. 2 after completion of two years service was proper and legal. The said reference was registered by the Industrial Tribunal, Bikaner being Industrial Dispute Case No. 1/2000.Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 preferred his claim through Annex. The said reference was registered by the Industrial Tribunal, Bikaner being Industrial Dispute Case No. 1/2000.Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 preferred his claim through Annex. 7 before the Industrial Tribunal, Bikaner stating inter-alia that he was entitled to regular pay scale from the date when he completed two years of service in the year 1982 and the recommendations of the Screening Committee that regular pay scale be given to him with effect from 1st April, 1989 are illegal and without jurisdiction.A reply to the claim submitted by the respondent No. 1 was filed by the petitioners before the Industrial Tribunal, Bikaner and the same is marked as Annex. 8 and in that reply, the main contention of the petitioners was that since the respondent No. 2 was found unsuitable by the Screening Committee, therefore, he could not be granted regular pay scale prior to 1.4.1989 and furthermore, grant of regular pay scale and regularisation of services is subject to adjudging the suitability by the Screening Committee.Thereafter, both the parties led evidence before the Industrial Tribunal, Bikaner in support of their respective cases.After hearing both the parties and considering the entire material available on record, the learned Judge, Industrial Tribunal, Bikaner through judgment and award dated 24.8.2000 (Annex. 12) allowed the claim of the respondent No. 2 and directed the petitioners to grant benefit of regular pay scale to the respondent No. 2 with effect from 1st April, 1982 holding inter-alia: (1) That first appointment to respondent No. 2 was given on 10.9.1979 and on 31.3.1982 he had completed two years of his service. (2) That no doubt a meeting of the Screening Committee was held on 17.9.1987 and in that meeting, performance of various workmen was examined by the Screening Committee, but the respondent No. 2 was not found suitable for the purpose of granting regular pay scale, but by simply saying that he was not found suitable, that was not sufficient and on that ground, grant of regular pay scale could not be refused to respondent No. 2. Thus, the Industrial Tribunal came to the conclusion that non-giving of benefit of regular pay scale to the respondent No. 2 after completion of two years service was not proper and legal and thus, the Industrial Tribunal directed the petitioners to grant the benefit of regular pay scale to the respondent No. 2 with effect from 1.4.1982.Aggrieved from the said judgment and award dated 24.8.2000 (Annex. 12) passed by the respondent No. 1 Industrial Tribunal, Bikaner, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioners. 3. In this writ petition, the main submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the respondent No. 2 did not complete two years of service as on 31.3.1982 as he was engaged as a work-charged employee in the year 1980 though he was appointed in the year 1979 and because of this fact, the Screening Committee which was constituted in the year 1983 did not consider the case of the respondent No. 2 as he had not completed two years of service as on 31.3.1982. Apart from this, the Review Committee constituted in the year 1987 considered the case of the respondent No. 2, but he was not found suitable. Therefore, the respondent No. 2 was not entitled to be regularised in service with effect from 1.4.1982. Hence, the impugned judgment and award of the Industrial Tribunal dated 24.8.2000 (Annex. 12) granting benefit of regular pay scale to the respondent No. 2 w.e.f. 1.4.1982 are absolutely illegal and should be set aside. 4. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 supported the impugned judgment and Award dated 24.8.2000 (Annex. 12) passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bikaner. It was further submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the scope of interference by the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the findings of the Labour Court/Tribunal is very limited one and since the findings of the Industrial Tribunal are based on correct appreciation of evidence, therefore, they should not be disturbed in this writ petition and this writ petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 and gone through the materials available on record. 6. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 and gone through the materials available on record. 6. Without going into the controversy whether the respondent No. 2 has completed two years of service on 31.3.1982 or not, it may be stated here that this Court in Ramu Ram and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. RLW 1998 (3) Raj. 1570 has held that even after completing two years of continuous service, an employee does not become entitled for grant of semi-permanent status automatically. 7. Thus, to say that because the respondent No. 2 has completed two years of service, therefore, he should be granted regularisation in service, is not tenable. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mukesh Bhai Chhotabhai Patel v. Joint Agriculture & Marketing Advisor, 1994 (6) SCC 36 : 1994 (5) SLR 175 (SC) , has held that regularisation in service does to take place automatically and for regularisation, if there is a qualifying test prescribed under the Rules, that has to be cleared by the candidate. 9. Similarly, in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Piara Singh and Ors., AIR 1992 Supreme Court 2130 : 1992 (4) SLR 770 (SC) , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that blanket directions to regularise the services of the workman is not expected and test of suitability is upheld. 10. Thus, from the above, it becomes very much clear that there is no automatic regularisation after completion of two years' service and the workman has to clear the screening test by the Screening Committee or qualify the test prescribed under the Rules, as the case may be. 11. In the present case, the case of the respondent No. 2 for grant of regular pay scale was considered by the Screening Committee on 17.9.1987, as is evident from the order Annex. 3 dated 21.11.1987, but he was not found suitable by the Screening Committee for grant of regular pay scale. Thereafter, vide order Annex. 11. In the present case, the case of the respondent No. 2 for grant of regular pay scale was considered by the Screening Committee on 17.9.1987, as is evident from the order Annex. 3 dated 21.11.1987, but he was not found suitable by the Screening Committee for grant of regular pay scale. Thereafter, vide order Annex. 4 dated 2.3.1989; the Screening Committee was reconstituted to screen the work-charge/casual monthly or daily rated workmen, who have completed two years continuous service as on 31.3.1983 and the said Screening Committee found the respondent No. 2 suitable for regularisation with effect from 1.4.1989 and thus, as per the decision of the said Screening Committee, the respondent No. 2 was given regular pay scale with effect from 1.4.1989 vide order Annex. 6 dated 28.4.1990. 12. In my considered opinion, when this being the position and when the earlier Screening Committee on 17.9.1987 did not find the respondent No. 2 suitable for grant of regular pay scale and later on another Screening Committee constituted vide order Annex. 4 dated 2.3.1989 found the respondent No. 2 suitable for grant of regular pay scale with effect from 1.4.1989, therefore, in these circumstances, if regular pay scale was given to the respondent No. 2 with effect from 1.4.1989 vide order dated 28.4.1990 (Annex. 6), no illegality of irregularity has been committed by the petitioners in doing so and the findings of the Industrial Tribunal that suitability test has no meaning and only on this ground, the respondent No. 2 cannot be deprived of the benefit of regular pay scale, cannot be accepted as they are perverse and erroneous on the very face of it, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as stated above, that there is no automatic regularisation after completion of two years service and the workman has to clear the screening test. Hence, there is error of law apparent on the face of the record. Thus, the Industrial Tribunal committed illegality in granting regular pay scale to the respondent No. 2 with effect from 1.4.1982. 13. Hence, there is error of law apparent on the face of the record. Thus, the Industrial Tribunal committed illegality in granting regular pay scale to the respondent No. 2 with effect from 1.4.1982. 13. It may be stated here that the power of general superintendence conferred by Article 27 of the Constitution of India involves a duty on the part of the High Court to keep all Courts and Tribunals within its territorial jurisdiction within the bounds of their authority, to see that they do what their duty requires and they do it in a legal manner. This means that the High Court can interfere in cases of - (a) Erroneous assumption or excess of jurisdiction. (b) Refusal to exercise jurisdiction. (c) Error of law apparent on the face of the record, as distinguished from a mere mistake of law or error of law relating to jurisdiction. (d) Violation of principles of natural justice. (e) Arbitrary or capricious exercise of authority, or discretion. (f) Arriving at a finding which is perverse or based on no material. 14. In the present case, as already stated above the findings of the Industrial Tribunal are perverse and erroneous and there is error of law apparent on the face of the record and the Industrial Tribunal committed illegality in granting regular pay scale to the respondent No. 2 with effect from 1.4.1982 and, therefore, in these circumstances, the findings of the Industrial Tribunal cannot be sustained. 15. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment and award of the Industrial Tribunal dated 24.8.2000 (Annex. 12) granting regular pay scale to the respondent No. 2 with effect from 1.4.1982 are liable to be set aside and the respondent No. 2 would be entitled to regular pay scale with effect from 1.4.1989, which was granted to him vide order Annex. 6 dated 28.4.1990.Accordingly, this writ petition filed by the petitioners is allowed and the impugned judgment and award dated 24.8.2000 (Annex. 12) passed by the respondent No. 1 Judge, Industrial Tribunal, Bikaner are set aside. The respondent No. 2 would be entitled to regular pay scale with effect from 1.4.1989, which was granted to him vide order Annex. 6 dated 28.4.1990. No order as to costs.Order accordingly. *******