JUDGMENT 1. - Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal. 2. The respondent-workman, who joined the services of the then Rajasthan State Electricity Board, has allegedly been appointed as Helper II s on 13.1.1960 and was promoted as Helper Gr. I on 1.1.1964. On 1.4.1968, 60 persons junior to him were promoted in the category of skilled-B workmen whereas he was denied the said promotion. This led to raising of an industrial dispute about denial of promotion to respondent-workman. As per the claim filed by the workman, he was appointed on 13.1.1960 in Sri Ganganagar as to Helper Gr. II and on 1.1.1964, he was promoted to the post of Helper Gr. I. He also stated that Sweeper is not a post on work charged establishment but is a Class IV post on which he was never appointed. The Helpers are semi-skilled workmen. In the seniority list of the Helpers, against his name word 'Sweeper' was added which according to the claim was an act to deny him the promotion mala fide. 3. The appellant-employer took the specific plea that the workman was employed as a Sweeper and he was denied promotion as he was not assigned any other work and since Sweeper was not a technical hand, he was not qualified to the post of skilled workman. 4. The plea of the workman did not find favour with the Management initially or in appeal before the Fixation Committee and that is why the dispute came before the Labour Court on reference being made after the settlement proceedings failed before the Conciliation Officer. 5. The Labour Court in its award, considering the evidence led by the employer itself, found that the plea of the employer that the workman never discharged the functions of technical nature and was always working as a Sweeper is not supported. On the contrary, at least it comes from the statement of the witnesses produced on behalf of the employer that time and again he was required to discharge functions of technical nature. It was also admitted that there is no post of Sweeper on the work charged establishment and it is a post of Class IV services on regular establishment. It is also not in dispute that the functions of Helper is of technical nature in the category of semi-skilled workman. It was also admitted that there is no post of Sweeper on the work charged establishment and it is a post of Class IV services on regular establishment. It is also not in dispute that the functions of Helper is of technical nature in the category of semi-skilled workman. Once the conclusion was fair enough to reach that the workman in question was employed in the first instance as Helper-II and promoted to Gr. I both of which posts are of technical nature and the contention of the employer that the workman in question was discharging the functions as Sweeper and was continuously working as Sweeper was not tenable on the evidence led by the employer itself, the further conclusion that denial of promotion to the workman as skilled workman-B while persons 40 junior to him were promoted on 1.4.1968 is a conclusion reached by the Tribunal on appreciation of evidence which cannot be said to be suffering from the vice of perversity or based on irrelevant consideration. 6. In view thereof, we are of the opinion that there was no room for this Court to interfere in its extra-ordinary jurisdiction in the findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court in this regard. Once this finding is reached that the workman in question was discharging the functions of technical nature in the semi-skilled class and on the admitted facts, on 1.4.1968 about persons junior to the workman in question were promoted to Helper Gr. I, the relief automatically flows that the workman cannot be made to suffer this inequality. Consequently, the relief granted by the Tribunal that denial of promotion to the workman to the skilled Class-6 w.e.f. 1.4.1968 when persons junior to him were promoted, was not justified and consequently, he be promoted w.e.f. 1.4.1968. The learned Single Judge has, therefore, rightly 5 did not interfere with the award and dismissed the writ petition filed by the employer. 7. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the reference itself was bad because of the settlement in existence is stated to be rejected. No dispute was raised about the existing settlement. The dispute is about denial of promotion when person junior to him have been promoted on 1.4.1968. The promotion was according to terms and conditions can only be a defence to the claim, but cannot be considered as a dispute contrary to settlement. No dispute was raised about the existing settlement. The dispute is about denial of promotion when person junior to him have been promoted on 1.4.1968. The promotion was according to terms and conditions can only be a defence to the claim, but cannot be considered as a dispute contrary to settlement. In view thereof. this contention cannot be sustained. The contention about ineligibility of the workman brings to the fore the finding of fact recorded against the employer by the Labour Court on cogent material before it, therefore, not liable to be re-appreciated. 8. In view of the aforesaid, we find no merit in this appeal and the same stands accordingly dismissed. *******