( 1 ) BY means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-U. P. State Road Transport Corporation, here-in-after shall be referred as employer challenge the award of the Industrial Tribunal (3), U. P. , Kanpur dated 15th October, 1997 passed in adjudication case no. 188 of 1990, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. ( 2 ) IN short, the brief facts of the present case are that the State Government in exercise of power under Section 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (In short the Act) vide order dated 21st May, 1990 have referred the following matter for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal. "whether the action of the employer in not giving the designation and pay to the workmen mentioned in the reference the post of specialist is illegal and unjustified? If so, to what relief the workmen concerned is entitled and with what details?" ( 3 ) THE Tribunal has issued notices to both the employer as well as the workmen concern and both the parties have exchanged their pleadings before the Tribunal. ( 4 ) IN short, the contention of concerned workmen is that both the workmen have passed the certificate of Motor mechanic from the Industrial training Institute and have completed the apprenticeship with Kailash Motor Service Station, Kanpur and thereafter they have been employed by the employer on 3rd August, 1978 and 23rd January, 1980, respectively. The concern workman Ram Pal was send for training according to its work and performance to Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. , Jamshedpur for overhauling of Tata Cabin from where he has passed the training successfully. Both the concerned workmen are working for repair, overhauling and assembling of special Tata engines. Prior to the workmen concerned, this work was being performed by Bageshwar, Mishri Lal and Dost Mohammad, who were given the grade of specialist by the employer and were being paid wages of specialist. Both the concerned workmen are working for repair, overhauling and assembling of special Tata engines. Prior to the workmen concerned, this work was being performed by Bageshwar, Mishri Lal and Dost Mohammad, who were given the grade of specialist by the employer and were being paid wages of specialist. It is due to death of Bageshwar and retirement of Mishri Lal, both these posts are lying vacant and the concerned workmen are performing the same duty as were being performed by these two persons, who have since retired or dead since 1988, therefore the concerned workmen are entitled for the designation of specialist and the wages of specialist, which is being illegally denied by the employer to the workmen concerned. ( 5 ) IN reply, the employer submitted that in the Kanpur workshop of the employer the new buses are assembled and engine of old buses are repaired/renewed and there are five category of persons in the establishment of the employer, namely (i) un-skilled; (ii) semi-skilled; (iii) skilled; (iv) specialist; and (v) specialist Grade-1. It is further contented by the employer that the promotion to these grades are made according to the seniority subject to the availability of the vacancies taking into consideration the reservation. The employer further submitted that for the post of specialist, no particular work is fixed. Workman Sri Ram was appointed on 3rd August, 1978 as un-skilled and workman Shyam Sunder was appointed on 23rd January, 1980 as un-skilled. Both the workmen concerned were promoted with effect from 7th April, 1986 as semi-skilled and Shyam Sunder was promoted by the order dated 8th October, 1990 as he belongs to reserved category. The workmen concerned are performing the same job as are being performed by other workmen employed by the employer as skilled and semi-skilled. The concerned workmen are at serial no. 30 and 31 in the seniority list, thus they cannot be promoted to the post on which they claim. ( 6 ) BOTH the workmen and the employer have adduced their evidence. The Tribunal after considering the material on record has arrived at the conclusion that it is not pleaded by the employer that the workmen concerned are not entitled to be given designation of the specialist or that they are in-competent for the same. ( 6 ) BOTH the workmen and the employer have adduced their evidence. The Tribunal after considering the material on record has arrived at the conclusion that it is not pleaded by the employer that the workmen concerned are not entitled to be given designation of the specialist or that they are in-competent for the same. It is also not the case of the employer that they are in any way lacking any qualification and that their work and conduct is not satisfactory. From the material on record, the Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that workman Ram Pal possesses the special qualification and is performing the same job as were being performed by the persons who were categorised as specialist. With regard to the second workman Shyam Sunder, the Tribunal has arrived at the conclusion that he has totally failed to establish his case. The Tribunal therefore held that the action of the employer in denying the wages and the designation to the workman Ram Pal is illegal and therefore the reference was answered in favour of workman Ram Pal to the effect that the concerned workman namely Ram Pal shall be designated as specialist and will be paid wages for the same with effect from the date of reference i. e. 21st May, 1990 and the claim with regard to other workman, namely Shyam Sunder has been rejected. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the employer submitted that the finding arrived at by the Tribunal to the effect that workman Ram Pal is perform the job of specialist suffers from the error apparent on the face of record, inasmuch as the employer have categorically submitted before the Tribunal that every workmen employed by the employer are performing the similar job and they are designated under the various category, referred to above, therefore the Tribunal erred in law in arriving at the conclusion on the basis of the finding that workman Ram Pal is performing the same work as are being performed by other persons who were designated by the employer as specialist. Learned counsel for the employer failed to demonstrate that the finding arrived at by the Tribunal in any way is wither perverse or suffer from any error, much less error apparent on the face of record, inasmuch as it is settled that if the finding arrived at by the Tribunal is based on material on record, the same cannot be said to be either perverse or suffer from any error, much less error apparent on the face of record. Nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner-employer that in arriving at the conclusion that workman Ram Pal is entitled to be designated as specialist and further entitled to get the wages for the same, any evidence that has been adduced by the employer has been ignored or has not been considered. In these circumstances, I do not agree with the argument advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the employer that the award of the Tribunal in any way either suffers from the error apparent on the face of record, or is perverse, which may warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 8 ) IN view of what has been stated above, this writ petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. However, there shall be no order as to costs. .