JUDGMENT A. S. NAIDU, J. : The petitioners, who are members of Orissa Coalfields Labour Union, Angul have approached this Court, inter alia, challenging the award dated 24th February 1998 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Orissa, Bhubaneswar, in Industrial Dispute Case No.12/1994 (Central). Espousing the cause of seven workmen, who were denuded from proper scale of pay and designation, the Orissa Coalfields Labour Union raised an industrial dispute. Conciliation having failed, the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred upon them by Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2-A) and Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following disputes for adjudication to the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal. The reference read as follows: “Whether the action of the management of Talcher Area, Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., in not placing the following seven workmen in proper scale of pay and designation from the date of their working in the Integrated Water Supply Scheme, i.e., 9.3.90 is justified ? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled ? (1) Shankar Jani, (2) Chintamani Sahoo, (3) Kusiya Nayak, (4) Narahari Nayak, (5) Shasni Naik, (6) Sudhakar Nayak and (7) Purna Chandra Pradhan.” 2. According to the Union, the First Party is a Public Sector Company and was also maintaining a Plant for supplying drinking water to the field of operation as well as to its Town¬ship. The seven workmen named in the preceding paragraph except Purna Chandra Pradhan who were working at Deulbera Colliery since long as piece rated under ground loaders of Group-V. After the new I.W.S.S. Plant was commissioned, the aforesaid persons except Purna Chandra Pradhan were brought to work in the said Plant w.e.f. 9th March, 1990. They were imparted training and they used to discharge their duties in the Plant. They are oper¬ating heavy electrical switches and discharging their duties to the fullest satisfaction of the management. 3. Purna Chandra Pradhan was also brought to the I.W.S.S. Plant to work with the above six persons. All of them were paid wages as time rated category-1 equivalent to the wage of the skilled workers of time rated category-V. They were designated as Pump Khalasi. The aforesaid workman moved the management for regulariation of their wages but then no action was taken by the management. All of them were paid wages as time rated category-1 equivalent to the wage of the skilled workers of time rated category-V. They were designated as Pump Khalasi. The aforesaid workman moved the management for regulariation of their wages but then no action was taken by the management. The Union of which they were members took up the issue and raised the dispute, inter alia, taking the stand that the management by adopting unfair labour practice effected trans¬fer of Sankar Jani and Chintamani Sahoo to different units with¬out ear marking their designations.While matter stood thus, the management by order dated 31.12.1993 designated the above workmen except Sanakar Jani and Chintamani Sahoo to be category-1 Mazdoor instead of skilled category-V. According to the Union the serv¬ices of the seven named persons were required to be regularized as multi-skilled workers category-V with retrospective effect. 4. The management appeared before the labour Court and filed a written statement taking the stand that the aforesaid seven workmen were piece rated loaders. They were working in Colliery. They were transferred to I.W.S.S. unit on medical ground. They were discharging the job of general Mazdoors. Their services had been duly regularized by the management as per the Company Circulars and guidelines. According to the management Kushiya Nayak, Narahari Nayak and Sudhakar Nayak have been regu¬larized as against sanctioned vacancies as category-1 Mazdoor and designated as Pump Khalasi. According to the management the case of the other four employees named in the reference was to be considered as and when vacancies occurred. 5. On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed two issues. Both the parties adduced evidence, both oral and documentary, to substantiate their cases. After discussing the evidence, both oral and documentary, the Tribunal observed that out of the seven workmen, Kushiya Nayak, Narahari Nayak and Sudhakar Nayak had been absorbed as Pump Khalasi category- III which is promotional post from general Mazdoor, category-I and Pump Helpers and, as such, they were entitled to an extra amount of Rs.100/- per month as they were discharging more onerous duties till their promotion to the post of Pump Khalasi. On the basis of such observation, the Tribunal directed that Kushiya Nayak, Narahari Nayak and Sudhakar Nayak were required to be paid the differential extra wages from the date of origin of Ext.21 to the date of origin of Ext.7 and that if there was no sanction post of Pump Helper, Purna Chandra Naik and Sasi Naik be paid differential extra wages of Rs.100/- per month from 5.1.91 till they were promoted to the post of Pump Khalasis. 6. The Tribunal, however refused to grant such benefit to petitioner Nos.2 and 3, namely Sankar Jani and Chintamanik Sahoo on the ground that both the aforesaid workman on their own re¬quest were transferred as loaders. Both the management and the said two workmen failed to produce any materials before the Tribunal that they had joined their new assignment. On the basis of such conclusion, the Tribunal held that petitioners Nos.2 and 3 were not entitled to any extra wages for the period they did not work. However, it directed that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 should be placed in equal rank like other persons named the reference, though they were working outside I.W.S.S. and should also be paid extra wages from the date when Ext.21 was issued till they are promoted to the post of Pump Khalasis. In short, according to the Industrial Tribunal, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were not entitled to any extra wages for the period for which they did not work in their transfer posts. 7. According to learned counsel for the petitioners the reasons given by the Tribunal are not correct and are based on extraneous reasons. The said submission is strongly repudiated by the learned counsel appearing for the management. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, perused the pleadings and the evidence, both oral and documentary. The orders issued by the management vide Exts.3,4 etc. reveal that both Chintamani Sahoo and Sankar Jani were transferred as loaders. There is no material to reveal that the aforesaid two persons were at any time deployed as loaders. Opp.parties 2 and 3 also did not adduce any material to show that they had joined the said posts on being transferred. Thus, it is crystal clear that they did not work for the aforesaid period. They were not discharging any extra work and the Tribunal has rightly disallowed their claim. Opp.parties 2 and 3 also did not adduce any material to show that they had joined the said posts on being transferred. Thus, it is crystal clear that they did not work for the aforesaid period. They were not discharging any extra work and the Tribunal has rightly disallowed their claim. The discussions made by the Tribunal and the conclusions arrived at are just, proper and in consonance with the materials available. Law is well settled that in a certiorari proceeding High Court should slow to interfere with the finding of facts arrived at by the Tribunal unless it comes to the notice of the Court that the finding of fact is palpably illegal, contrary to the materials and causes miscar¬riage of justice and/or there is any error apparent on the face of the record. In the case at hand, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the evidence, both oral and documentary, and dis¬cussed the same in extenso. I do not find any infirmity or ille¬gality in the award of the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the petitioners also failed to point out any error apparent on the face of the record. I am therefore, not inclined to interfere with the award. 9. The writ application accordingly stands dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. Application dismissed.