SUNIL AMBWANI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD counsel for parties. ( 2 ) THE petitioners have prayed for quashing the award dated 11. 9. 2000 made by the Central industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. Kanpur in Industrial Dispute No. 3/1998, to the extent that the writ petitioners have been denied nomenclature/designation of Welder and Machinist respectively and regular pay scale in Grade-1 or any other grade with all other benefits admissible to the posts. They have also prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to give designation and scale of pay to the petitioners on the post of Welder and machinist in Grade-1 with effect from 10. 7,1987 and 1. 3. 1987 respectively. ( 3 ) BRIEF facts, giving rise to this writ petition, are that the petitioners were appointed as Khalasi with effect from 10. 2. 1987 and 23. 2. 1987 respectively in Electric Locoshed Fazalganj Kanpur under Northern Railway, Allahabad. They raised industrial dispute for payment of wages for performing duties as welder Grade-1 and Machinists Grade 1 w. e. f. 10. 7. 1987 and 1. 3. 19s7. ( 4 ) THE petitioners-workmen pleaded in their written statements that they are discharging the duties of Welder Grade-1 and Machinist Grade-1 but the Management is not paying the wages payable to the nature of work performed by them. The Management in its written statement slated that Sri Anil Kumar Tiwari and Sri Jay Krishan Pandey were never selected, and posted as weldar Grade-1 and Machinist Grade-1 respectively and thus they are not entitled to pay on the posts. They were appointed as Khalasi and are being paid salary of Khalasi. Even if they are discharging the functions of Welder and Machinist on ad hoc arrangement, they are not entitled to salary and pay scale until and unless they are regularly promoted on the posts. ( 5 ) AFTER taking evidence, the Industrial Tribunal found that the petitioners are discharging functions and duties as Welder Grade-1 and Machinist Grade-1 and that they are entitled to salaries attached to the posts. However, they are not entitled to promotion until they are regularly promoted as such by the Management. The operative portion of the award is quoted as below; 15. In view of findings recorded above, I hold that the action of Northern Railway in not giving pay scale of welder Gr. However, they are not entitled to promotion until they are regularly promoted as such by the Management. The operative portion of the award is quoted as below; 15. In view of findings recorded above, I hold that the action of Northern Railway in not giving pay scale of welder Gr. (III) to Sri Anil Kumar Tiwari and pay scale of machinist grade (III) to sri J. K. Pandey from 10. 7. 1987 and 1. 3,1987 respectively is unjustified. I further hold that Sri pandey is entitled to get the difference of salary of machinist grade (III) and Khalasi from 1987 to 1993, and from 1993 he is entitled to get difference of salary of the post of machinist and helper khalasi. Similarly Sri Anil Kumar Tiwari is entitled to get difference of salary of machinist and khalasi from 10. 7. 1987 to 1993 and difference of wages between welder grade (III) and helper khalasi onwards. 16. The Management is directed to make payment of difference of wages to both of them within a period of three months from the date of publication of this award failing which the management shall he liable to pay interest @ 10% on the amount found due. 17. Reference is answered accordingly. ( 6 ) SRI B. N. Singh appearing for the petitioners submits that once it is found that the petitioners were discharging duties and responsibilities on higher posts, the Industrial Tribunal failed in exercise of its jurisdiction in refusing to give them nomenclature of the posts, which amounts to consequential relief of fitment in the higher grade. He has relied upon a judgment of this Court in national Textile Corporation, (U. P.) Limited v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court-I Kanpur 1991 (62) FLR 583 , in which it was held that where the Management had itself promoted the workmen to work and act on higher posts of travelling salesman for several years, the petitioners did not claim promotion but only prayed for giving the designation and pay of the post on which he was working for last several years. The writ petition was dismissed upholding the award giving designation and pay of travelling salesmen to the workman. ( 7 ) IN Workmen Employed by Hindustan Lever Limited v. Hindustan Lever ltd. 1984 (49)FLR 364 (SC), it was held that the promotion is a management function. The writ petition was dismissed upholding the award giving designation and pay of travelling salesmen to the workman. ( 7 ) IN Workmen Employed by Hindustan Lever Limited v. Hindustan Lever ltd. 1984 (49)FLR 364 (SC), it was held that the promotion is a management function. The industrial dispute referred to the tribunal was not one for claiming promotion. The tribunal overlooked the fact that the duty was in respect of the workman already promoted i. e. in respect of whole managerial functions of selecting personnel for promotion had been already performed. The demand was in respect of already promoted workmen, may be in an officiating capacity for their classification from acting or temporary to confirmed that is permanent, in the higher grade to which they were promoted, after a reasonable period of service. The Supreme Court found that the demand could not be said to be one for promotion. ( 8 ) IN the counter affidavit of Sri P. C. Tripathi, Senior DEE/tr-S/n. Rly. Kanpur in the office of divisional Railway Manager, Allahabad Division, Allahabad, it is stated that the petitioners are the part of Electric Rolling Stock Cadre, for maintenance for rolling stock, which is basic requirement of train-operation. This cadre is divided mainly info the three parts: one supervisory staff (Class-III/group-C), second Artisan staff (Class-III/group C) and third Artisan staff (Class iv/group-D) (Unskilled/semi skilled staff) with the introduction of various pay commissions, different re-structuring, elevation of pay scale etc. has been introduced and implemented as per directions of Railway Board/general Manager, Northern Railway, to ensure staff satisfaction and financial upgradation. After every three years, a seniority list is prepared and published for information of the concerned Railways employees for each grade of the cadre respectively so that on account of normal outflow of staff due to various reasons including superannuation, death, transfer etc, staff are considered for promotion against the vacancies of higher grade by way of selection, suitability, trade lest etc. of their turn as per prevalent AVC and Rules available and prevalent at the time of promotion, for career advancement of the employee. In para 11, it is stated that taking into account suitability for promotion and with the approval of proceedings by the competent authority the employee becomes entitled for higher wages from the date he takes over higher responsibility after going through the proper procedure of promotion and issuance of promotion orders. In para 11, it is stated that taking into account suitability for promotion and with the approval of proceedings by the competent authority the employee becomes entitled for higher wages from the date he takes over higher responsibility after going through the proper procedure of promotion and issuance of promotion orders. ( 9 ) THE promotion in higher grade depends upon the suitability, trade tests, selection etc. prevalent service rules which depend upon the availability on the post in the higher grade. The tribunal as such has rightly held that the petitioners shall be given regular promotion whenever it is due under the rules by the management, and that they are entitled to the pay scale of the posts on which they are discharging duties, but they cannot be given promotion by the tribunal. ( 10 ) IN Swadesh Cotton Mills Company Ltd. v. the Labour Court-I, Kanpur 1978 LIC 437. the Supreme Court held that the High Court can grant relief in a matter arising out of Industrial tribunal, where illegality complained has resulted in substantial failure of justice. In Workmen employed by Hindustan Lever ltd. v. Hindustan Lever 1984 LIC 1573, the Supreme Court was dealing with the demand of classification of employees. The Supreme Court held that such demand includes classification by grade, and that the Industrial Tribunal misinterpreted such demand in reaching the conclusion that it was for promotion, which is a managerial function and beyond the reach of i its jurisdiction. These decisions do not help the petitioner, ( 11 ) I do not agree with the submission of Sri B. N. Singh that in the present case the tribunal was only required to pass orders of fitment. His prayer for promotion could only be granted by the management as it was a managerial function and not by the tribunal. ( 12 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. . .