JUDGMENT : M. Y. Eqbal, J.- This appeal has come for final hearing before us after remand by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3509 of 1998 for disposal of the appeal on merit. 2. The instant appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.2.97 passed in CWJC No. 3369 of 1995(R) whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant against the award passed by the Labour Court in Ref. case No. 29/94. 3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The case of the appellant-Management is that sometimes in 1973 the Employment Exchange, Bokaro Steel City was asked for sponsoring the candidates to fill up the post of Construction Supervisor (E) grade III having requisite qualification and experience i.e. the candidate should have three years diploma course from a recognised Institute in Electrical Engineering with minimum one year's experience. The Employment Exchange accordingly sponsored the name of respondent no.2, Nayeem Akhtar for consideration against the aforesaid vacancy. He was accordingly interviewed by the Management and was finally selected. The said respondent no.2 was appointed on the post of Construction Supervisor (E) grade III vide letter dated 7.9.73. However, when the said respondent reported to join his duty, he was not allowed to join as on verification of the certificates it was detected that he does not possess requisite qualification. The said respondent then made representation stating, inter alia, that he has already resigned from the post he was earlier holding in another establishment and he was out of job and, accordingly, he requested the Management to adjust him on any post. 4. Management's further case is that considering the representation of the respondent, he was offered appointment as Electrician grade II vide letter dated 13.12.73. Purusant to that the respondent no. 2 accepted the said offer and joined his duty as Electrician grade II on 14.12.73. The respondent was, thereafter, time to time promoted as Electrician grade I in 1977 and Electrician H. S. in 1986. The respondent, after joining the said post, made a representation challenging the order of the Management in not allowing him to resume his duty as Construction Supervisor (E) grade III which was rejected by the Management in the year 1973 but the said respondent used to make representation to the authorities even thereafter. The respondent, after joining the said post, made a representation challenging the order of the Management in not allowing him to resume his duty as Construction Supervisor (E) grade III which was rejected by the Management in the year 1973 but the said respondent used to make representation to the authorities even thereafter. The respondent then succeeded in getting the following dispute referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. : "Whether the appointment of Sri Nayeem Akhtar to the post of Electrician grade II instead of Construction Supervisor (E) by the Management of Bokaro Steel Plant is proper ? If not, what relief he is entitled to?" 5. The case of the respondent-work man was that he passed matriculation examination in 1960 and, thereafter he completed three years electrical supervisor ship course from an Institute of Mining. West Bengal in 1967. He joined Lodhma colliery in the year, 1961 as Electrical Apprentice and in 1968 he joined Coal India as Electrical (sic-Electrician 7) Grade II. Further case of the respondent-workman was that his name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange for the post of Construction Supervisor (E) and after due interview he was found fit for appointment. However, when the workman reported for duty the Management directed him to obtain release order from his previous Employer. The respondent-workman submitted his resignation to the Coal Board and a release order was issued to him. He again reported to his duty but the Management did not allow him to join. He represented the matter to the higher authorities but his grievances were not considered and instead he was asked to accept much lower post of Electrician grade II. It was stated by the workman that initially he was not inclined to accept the post of Electrician grade II but due to financial crunch he joined the services of the Company as Electrician grade II. Even after joining the said post he continuously made representation for allowing him to join the post of Construction Supervisor (E). Ultimately a dispute was raised and referred to the Labour court for adjudication. 6. The Labour Court proceeded to decide the question as to whether the concerned workman possessed requisite qualification and experience for the post of Construction Supervisor (E). Ultimately a dispute was raised and referred to the Labour court for adjudication. 6. The Labour Court proceeded to decide the question as to whether the concerned workman possessed requisite qualification and experience for the post of Construction Supervisor (E). The workman based his claim on the ground that his name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange for the post of Construction Supervisor (E) and the Management after due scrutiny of the certificates issued appointment letter but subsequently he was not allowed to join as he was not possessing requisite qualification of three years diploma in Electrical Engineering from a recognized Institute. The Labour Court drew adverse inference against the Management for non-production of the advertisement notice by which the post of Construction Supervisor (E) was notified by the Management. The Labour Court on the aforesaid ground and also on the basis of the findings quoted hereinbelow, answered the reference in favour of the workman: "Much dust has been peddled by Shri S. K. Sinha, learned Manager Personnel that the post of Electrician grade II was offered to the workman as per his own request made in the legal notice and he is therefore estopped from claiming the post of Construction Supervisor (E) which was inadvertently offered to him. I find from the legal notice that the workman had requested the Management that was ready to accept any post commensurate to the post in question in Electrical Department for the sake of his livelihood from which he was deprived of for no fault of his own. The language of legal notice is explicit and it requires no interpretation. The workman was a Govt. servant holding the post of Electrician grade-II in Coal Board Lachipur, District Burdwan (WB.) and was thrown out of employment by reason of the acceptance offer made to him by the Management for the post of Construction Supervisor (E). He left the Govt. job for better employment in Bokaro Steel Plant but his hopes were shattered when he was not allowed to join the company as Construction Supervisor (E) grade-III. He was rendered jobless by the Management. The beggers are not choosers the workman had no choice but to give his assent for the post of Electrician grade-II. I, therefore, find that there is no merit in the submission of Shri S. K. Sinha learned Manager Personnel." 7. We have heard Mr. He was rendered jobless by the Management. The beggers are not choosers the workman had no choice but to give his assent for the post of Electrician grade-II. I, therefore, find that there is no merit in the submission of Shri S. K. Sinha learned Manager Personnel." 7. We have heard Mr. Baban Lal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Management and Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the workman. 8. Mr. Lal, learned counsel assailed the impugned judgment mainly on the ground that for the first time an industrial dispute was raised by the workman after a period of 21 years in 1994 and a specific defence was taken by the Management that it was a stale claim but the Labour Court has not at all considered this aspect of the matter and decided the reference on conjectures and surmises. Learned counsel submitted that the Labour Court totally failed to appreciate that the initial offer of appointment to the post of Construction Supervisor (E) grade II was on probation and he did not join the post because on verification of the documents it was found that he was not having requisite qualification. Learned counsel lastly submitted that the workman after having accepted the terms and conditions of fresh appointment as Electrician grade II and earning promotions thereafter, could not claim for treating him on the post of Construction Supervisor(E) right from 1973. The Labour Court has committed serious illegality in passing the award and directing the Management to issue letter of appointment to the post of Construction Supervisor (E) with retrospective effect. 9. We find much force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. It was the specific case of the Management before the Labour Court that the post of Construction Supervisor (E) was notified to the Employment Exchange for sponsoring the candidates with the qualification of three years experience in the line. Although the workman was not a diploma holder in Electrical Engineering, his name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange for the said post. At the time of interview the workman had produced Electrical Supervisor certificate only and had claimed and declared before the Interview Board that this was equivalent to three years diploma in Electrical Engineering. Delivering his version/declaration his name was recommended by the Selection Committee for appointment as Construction Supervisor (E) grade-III. 10. At the time of interview the workman had produced Electrical Supervisor certificate only and had claimed and declared before the Interview Board that this was equivalent to three years diploma in Electrical Engineering. Delivering his version/declaration his name was recommended by the Selection Committee for appointment as Construction Supervisor (E) grade-III. 10. The workman in his written statement filed before the Labour Court has not at all disputed the fact that in the advertisement there was no such condition for a candidate to possess three years diploma in electrical engineering. The only stand of the workman was that since his name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange and he was interviewed and appointment letter was issued, denial of appointment to the post of Construction Supervisor by the Management was illegal. In our view therefore the Labour Court has committed grave error of law in drawing adverse inference against the Management for the non-production of advertisement notice. 11. The Labour Court has also failed to appreciate the admitted fact that when after verification of the certificates it was found that the workman was not possessing diploma in Electrical Engineering he was not allowed to join and, thereafter, he made representation to the authorities of the Management and also served a legal notice informing that he was ready to accept any suitable post in Electrical Engineering Department. Taking into consideration the representation of the workman the Management allowed him to join as Electrician Grade II on 14.12.73. It is also not in dispute that in 1977 the workman was promoted to the post of Electrician Grade I and again he was given promotion to the post of Electrician H.S. in 1986. The workman gladly accepted those promotions and continuously availed all the promotional benefits. It was only in 1994 the aforesaid dispute was referred by the government to the Labour Court for adjudication. 12. The Labour Court without considering all the aspects of the matter illegally and erroneously answered the reference in favour of the workman. The workman gladly accepted those promotions and continuously availed all the promotional benefits. It was only in 1994 the aforesaid dispute was referred by the government to the Labour Court for adjudication. 12. The Labour Court without considering all the aspects of the matter illegally and erroneously answered the reference in favour of the workman. In any view of the matter the award of the Labour Court giving direction to the Management to issue office order appointing the workman to the post of Construction Supervisor (E-Grade III) with retrospective effect with further promotion to the higher post from the date when similarly situated workmen were promoted and also predetermining his seniority and refixation of pay, pay protection at every stages, payment of difference of salaries and other consequential benefits, is absolutely illegal and unjustified. The award of the Labour Court, therefore, cannot be sustained in law. Apart from that the Labour Court has further committed serious illegality in not holding that the reference of the dispute after 24 years itself was stale and not maintainable. 13. For the aforesaid reasons this appeal is allowed and the impugned award passed by the Labour Court in reference case No. 29/94 is set aside.