JUDGMENT Hon’ble Shishir Kumar, J.—By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has approached this Court for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the award dated 19.4.2006 passed by Presiding Officer-I, U.P. Kanpur in Adjudication Case No. 151 of 2002 which was published on 24.6.2006, Annexure-1 to the writ petition. 2. The petitioner U.P. State Handloom Corporation being employer has approached this Court for setting aside the aforesaid award by which the Labour Court has directed the petitioner that respondent-workman be treated on the post of Senior Salesman from 1.4.1981 and from 1.1.1986 be treated as Depot Manager Grade-II and accordingly the salary be paid to the respondent-workman. The respondent-workman who was an employee of the petitioner, as he was denied promotion on the post of Senior Salesman and subsequently on the post of Depot Manager Grade-II, raised a dispute before the labour Court on the basis of the reference by the State Government. For the ready reference, the reference to the labour Court is being quoted below : “KYA SEVAYOJKON DWARA APANE KARMCHARI SUSHIL KUMAR PUTRA SRI HARI, D. MASAND PAD SENIER SELSMAN, KENDRIYA VASTRAGAR KO DI. 1.4.81 SE SENIER SELSMAN PAD PAR VA DINANK 1.1.86 SE DIPO MANAGER GRADE-II PAD PAR PRONNAT KI JANI CHAHIYE? YADI HAN, TO KIS TITHI SE, TATHA KIS ANYA VIVARAN SAHIT?” 3. The labour Court on the basis of relevant record and on the basis of written statement filed on behalf of petitioner has considered the claim and has come to the conclusion that respondent-workman is entitled to be given promotion and further promotion in accordance with the reference. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri S.N. Singh Yadav has submitted before this Court that the labour Court has got no jurisdiction to direct the authority to treat a person at a particular post. The labour Court has only power to direct the authority concerned to consider the claim of the respondent-workman. It has further been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that according to U.P. State Handloom Corporation Limited (Officers and Staffs) Service Rules, 1981 which provides the provisions for promotion, sub-clauses (1) and (2) of Rule 23 of the aforesaid rules mention that all promotions form lower posts or grades to the higher posts or grades shall be mainly performance oriented. Promotion to the post of Group ‘A’ and Group ‘B’ against the vacancies reserved to be filled up by the promotion from amongst the serving employees, shall be strictly on merit. In taking support of the aforesaid provisions, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that it is on the basis of merit to be considered for promotion, therefore, the labour Court was not justified in directing the petitioner to treat the respondent-workman on a particular post. If the labour Court was satisfied, he should have directed the petitioner to consider the claim of the respondent-workman. In support of the aforesaid contention, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of K. Samantaray v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2004) 9 SCC 286 and has placed reliance upon paragraph-6 of the judgment which is quoted below : “In all services, whether public or private there is invariably a hierarchy of posts comprising of higher posts and lower posts. Promotion, as understood under the service law jurisprudence, is advancement in rank, grade or both and no employee has a right to be promoted, but has a right to be considered for promotion. The following observations in Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan are significant : “The question of a proper promotion policy depends on various conflicting factors. It is obvious that the only method in which absolute objectivity can be ensured is for all promotions to be made entirely on grounds of seniority. That means that if a post falls vacant it is filled by the person who has served longest in the post immediately below. But the trouble with the seniority system is that it is so objective that it fails to take any account of personal merit. As a system it is fair to every official except the best ones; an official has nothing to win or lose provided he does not actually become so inefficient that disciplinary action has to be taken against him. But, thought the system is fair to the officials concerned, it is a heavy burden on the public and a great strain on the efficient handling of public business. The problem, therefore is how to ensure reasonable prospect of advancement to all officials and at the same time to protect the public interest in having posts filled by the most able man? The problem, therefore is how to ensure reasonable prospect of advancement to all officials and at the same time to protect the public interest in having posts filled by the most able man? In other words, the question is how to find a correct balance between seniority and merit in a proper promotion policy.” 5. Further reliance has been placed upon a Single Judge judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 21029 of 1996, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and another v. Akhileshwar Prasad Sinha and others, decided on 7.11.2005 and the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that relying upon the judgment of (2004) 9 SCC 286 this Court has held that no employee has a right to be promoted, but only has a right to be considered for promotion. Further reliance has been placed upon a judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 21030 of 1996, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Bipin Behari Lal and others, decided on 26.10.2006. In support of the aforesaid judgment, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court has taken a view that the labour Court cannot direct for promotion. In such circumstances the labour Court has exceeded its jurisdiction. 6. Another judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is 2007 (2) ADJ 657 (DB), New Ikhla Industrial Development Authority v. U.P. Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow and others, and reliance has been placed on paras 5 and 6 of the said judgment which are quoted as below : “5. Two issues arise for consideration in this petition. The first issue is whether the Tribunal could have passed an order granting promotion to the post of Assistant Project Engineers instead of passing an order for consideration of their claim for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers. The second issue that arises for our consideration is whether the applicants could have been promoted without there being any evidence before the Tribunal that vacancies on the promotional posts existed. 6. The second issue that arises for our consideration is whether the applicants could have been promoted without there being any evidence before the Tribunal that vacancies on the promotional posts existed. 6. In our opinion, the directions issued by the Tribunal for promotion of the applicants to the post of Assistant Project Engineers is against the well settled principles enunciated by the Courts from time to time as the Courts can at best issue a direction to the authorities concerned to consider the cases for promotion but a direction promoting the candidates to the higher post cannot be issued as promotion to a particular post depends upon a number of factors to be taken into consideration by the authorities. In this view of the matter, the direction issued by the Tribunal for promotion to the post of Assistant Project Engineers cannot be sustained.” 7. In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the award given by the labour Court is liable to be set aside because the labour Court has exceeded its jurisdiction to direct the petitioner to promote the respondent-workman on a particular post. 8. On the other hand, Sri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that from the finding recorded by the labour Court, it is clear that admittedly, the respondent workman has been denied promotion without any reason and he has never been communicated that his performance is not up to the mark. A finding of fact has been recorded by the labour Court that admittedly, the junior persons to the respondents have been given promotion. In the written statement filed on behalf of the petitioner, various pleas have been taken regarding performance of the respondent-workman. The same was not proved before the labour Court. The labour Court has recorded a finding of fact. The employer has failed to produce any document or service record to this effect regarding denial of promotion to respondent-workman. The labour Court has also recorded a finding to this effect that the employer has also failed to disclose any reason regarding denial of promotion to the respondent-workman. No document in support thereof was produced and impliedly the petitioner has admitted this fact that junior persons to the respondent-workman have been promoted. In that circumstance the labour Court has passed the award and directed the petitioner to promote the respondent-workman. No document in support thereof was produced and impliedly the petitioner has admitted this fact that junior persons to the respondent-workman have been promoted. In that circumstance the labour Court has passed the award and directed the petitioner to promote the respondent-workman. There is no illegality in the award given by the labour Court. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment upon this Court reported in 2006 (108) FLR ????, U.P. State Sugar and Kane Development Corporation Ltd. v. Presiding Officer Labour Court Gorakhpur and others and has referred to para-10 of the said judgment. The same is reproduced below : “Having heard Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that though promotion normally is a management’s function but the Labour Court can interfere in the order of promotion when it finds that it is arbitrary, illegal, malafide or for any other just and proper cause. The Labour Court has given a categorical finding that the workmen had been working on the said posts not only during the season but also during off season i.e., they were working throughout the years and were paid corresponding wages of the posts held by them hence declaring them permanent in the facts and circumstances would not amount to promotion.” 9. In support of the aforesaid decision, learned Counsel for the respondent-workman submits that there is no dispute to this effect that promotion is normally a function of the management but the labour Court can interfere if it found the act of the employer as illegal, arbitrary and mala fide. In that circumstance the labour Court can pass an order of promotion. 10. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and perused the record. It is admitted case of the parties that the respondent-workman is an employee and was working in the Corporation. It is also admitted to the petitioner that various junior persons have been promoted but the respondent-workman has not been given promotion as his performance was not up to the mark. In the written statement filed on behalf of the petitioner, various grounds have been taken regarding non-giving promotion to respondent-workman but the allegations made in the written statement was to be proved on the basis of the relevant record. In the written statement filed on behalf of the petitioner, various grounds have been taken regarding non-giving promotion to respondent-workman but the allegations made in the written statement was to be proved on the basis of the relevant record. As regards denial of the promotion to the workman concerned, the petitioner has failed to file any document showing therein that at any point of time charge-sheet was ever given to the workman or his performance was not satisfactory. Even the petitioner has failed to prove by cogent document that whether at any point of time any warning was given to the workman concerned. 11. As regards the contention of the petitioner that promotion is oriented on the basis of merit and performance, there is no dispute to this effect that promotion at a particular post cannot be claimed as a matter of right but if some employee is denied promotion, the reason to that effect has to be disclosed. If the performance of a workman is not satisfactory, then it has to be disclosed as and when needed by the employer. Admittedly, no document or reason has been disclosed by the Corporation either before the labour Court or before this Court. 12. In such circumstances if the labour Court comes to the conclusion that action of the employer is arbitrary in denying some benefit and privilege to a workman, then in that circumstance the labour Court has full jurisdiction to grant or to direct the employer to give promotion and other consequential benefit. 13. It is well settled now that unless and until it is proved that finding recorded by labour Court is perverse or against the material on record, the labour Court being the last Court of fact, finding recorded by the labour Court is a finding of fact and there should not be any interference by this Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In 2005 SCC (L&S) 327, in the case of S. Pushpa v. Sivachannaugavelu, the Apex Court has held that while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India there is a very limited scope of interference of the award of the Labour Court as the Labour Court is a final Court of fact. The similar view has been taken in 2005 SCC (L&S) 484 in the case of Karnataka S.R.T.C. v. S.G. Kotturappa. The similar view has been taken in 2005 SCC (L&S) 484 in the case of Karnataka S.R.T.C. v. S.G. Kotturappa. 14. As regards the decision relied upon by the petitioner, there is no dispute that in the service law if the Court comes to the conclusion that a person has been denied promotion without any rhyme or reason, then this Court can only direct the authority concerned to consider his case. There is no dispute to this analogy raised and submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner but as regards the present case, admittedly, the respondent-workman in spite of approaching various times to the employer, has been denied promotion of not only one post but of two higher posts, one as Senior Salesman from 1.4.1981 and on the post of Depot Manager Grade-II from 1.1.1996. Cogent finding has been recorded by the labour Court that employer has failed to submit any document regarding unsatisfactory working of the respondent-workman. If the labour Court was of the opinion that the action of the employer was wholly arbitrary and has come to the conclusion that about 16 persons junior to the respondent-workman have been given promotion, in that circumstances, I am of view that the labour Court was justified in directing the petitioner to give the promotional benefit including the consequential benefit to the respondent-workman. 15. It has also been argued on behalf of the petitioner that the labour Court has got no jurisdiction to award the back wages or the financial benefits while giving the promotion. Admittedly, the respondent-workman has not worked during this period on the promoted post. In my view if the action of the employer petitioner is arbitrary and has given promotion to 16 junior persons to the respondent-workman, inspite of the fact that his service record is unblemished and the petitioner has failed to prove any unsatisfactory working of the concerned workman, in that case in my opinion, the Labour Court was fully justified in awarding the consequential benefit after giving promotion to the concerned workman. In a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2007 (7) ADJ 745 , State of U.P. and others v. Yadunath Singh and others in para 15 the Division Bench has observed relying upon the High Court judgment that principle of ‘No Work No Pay’ would have no application where the junior persons have been promoted and the employee concerned was neither under suspension nor any disciplinary proceeding was pending against him and on the contrary he was made to suffer on account of the action of the respondent-employer for which he was not responsible. The Apex Court held that there was no justification in denying him arrears of emoluments from the date of promotion. Para 15 of the judgment is being quoted below : “15. In Vasant Rao Roman v. Union of India and others, 1993 Suppl. (2) SCC 324 arrears of salary was denied to the employees though it was held that denial of promotion on the higher post on account of wrong fixation of seniority was illegal. The Apex Court held that the principle of `no work, no pay’ would have no application to the said case since the employee was neither under suspension nor any disciplinary proceeding was pending against him and on the contrary, he was made to suffer on account of administrative reason for which he was not responsible. There was shortage of literate Shunters at Gwalior during 1960 and the employee being literate was deputed for table work and therefore for administrative reason he could not complete requisite number of firing kilometres. The juniors were promoted as Shunters and Drivers and his claim was ignored on account of lack of requisite number of firing kilometres. Thus on the one hand the employee was utilised by the department to benefit itself with the qualification of the employee since the literate Shunters to discharge table work were not readily available and on the other hand for the same qualification he was denied promotion on the ground that he has not completed requisite number of firing kilometres. Hence, the Apex Court held that there was no justification in denying him arrears of emoluments from the date he was allowed promotion to the post of Shunter Grade `B’ and Driver Grade `C’.” 16. In view of the aforesaid fact, I find no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is hereby dismissed. 17. Hence, the Apex Court held that there was no justification in denying him arrears of emoluments from the date he was allowed promotion to the post of Shunter Grade `B’ and Driver Grade `C’.” 16. In view of the aforesaid fact, I find no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is hereby dismissed. 17. No order is passed as to costs. ————