JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has challenged in this writ petition the award dated 12th Nov., 2002 on the ground that the Labour Court has granted full relief to the petitioner but exceeded jurisdiction while directing the respondent-employer to determine the eligibility of the petitioner for the purpose of grant of promotion. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the reference in clear terms says that the Labour Court was to give answer to the dispute that whether the junior persons Kriparam and Hemaram were given promotion to the post of Driver, which was denied to the petitioner, who was senior to Kriparam and Hemaram and if the petitioner is entitled for the relief, then from which date the petitioner is entitled for the promotion and other benefits. 3. I perused the award dated 12th Nov., 2002. The Labour Court recorded finding in favour of the petitioner that denial of promotion of the petitioner along with juniors Kriparam and Hemaram is illegal, but ordered that respondents now considered the case of promotion of the petitioner to the post of Driver from the date 28th Jan., 1989, the date on which juniors to the petitioner were given promotion and grant the other benefits to the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to direct the respondents to mere consider the case of the petitioner for promotion. The labour Court should have granted the promotion to the petitioner from the date 28th Jan., 1989 itself. According to learned counsel for the petitioner. When there is a clear mention in the reference that the Labour Court shall decide that from which date the petitioner is entitled for the promotion, then the Labour Court should have passed the order of promotion itself. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is absolutely misconceived because the employee acquires right of consideration for promotion when juniors are given promotion bypassing the seniors. The Court cannot determine the eligibility of the candidate before it is being decided by the employer. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is absolutely misconceived because the employee acquires right of consideration for promotion when juniors are given promotion bypassing the seniors. The Court cannot determine the eligibility of the candidate before it is being decided by the employer. The labour Court, therefore, rightly determined the reference and gave answer to the reference that junior persons were promoted from 28th Jan., 1989 and looking to the seniority of the petitioner, he acquired his right for consideration of promotion with other benefits, therefore, the concerned authorities are required to look into all eligibility of the petitioner and thereafter, are required to pass an appropriate order in consonance to the order passed by the labour Court. It cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the labour Court exceeded jurisdiction in directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and grant the promotion after looking into his eligibility rather this was clearly within the jurisdiction of the labour Court and the labour Court, in the facts of this case, could not have straightaway passed the order of promotion in favour of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents may be directed to decide the case of promotion to the petitioner within a specified period. The request of learned counsel for the petitioner is just and proper, therefore, it is directed that the respondents shall decide the case of promotion of the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of placing of the certified copy of this order before the respondents by the petitioner.The writ petition of the petitioner so far as challenge to the award is concerned, is dismissed but with direction as mentioned above.Petition dismissed. *******