Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. It has been stated on behalf of the petitioner Bank that the third respondent was originally employed in the Tamilnadu Consumer Marketing Federation, from 14. 81 to 30.87. As per the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.1204, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 18. 87, the third respondent was appointed as a sales women in the Fair Price Shop Branch at Antheripatti, under the petitioner management, by the Special Officer of the petitioner Bank, on 87. On 110. 87, K. Manoharan and N. Natesan were also appointed as Salesmen under the petitioner Bank. Based on their own merits and qualifications, they were promoted as Clerks. The third respondent had not questioned their promotion at that point of time. 3. It has also been stated that since certain irregularities had been committed, both K. Manoharan and N. Natesan were reverted to the post of Salesman from the post of Clerk. However, they were again promoted to the post of Clerk as their reversion had been questioned before this Court. While so, the third respondent had been making representations to consider her for being promoted to the post of Clerk. Since there was no vacancy in the petitioner Bank and since the existing strength was more than the cadre strength fixed by a settlement, under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the third respondents request for promotion could not be considered. In such circumstances, the third respondent had raised a dispute before the Labour Officer. Since the conciliation efforts had failed, the Labour Officer had sent his report to the State Government. Thereafter, the State Government had referred the dispute to the Labour Court, Salem, for adjudication in G.O.(D) 647 Labour and employment Department, dated 27. 99, and it was numbered as I.D.No.212 of 1999. Even though a reply had been filed on behalf of the petitioner Bank, the Secretary of the petitioner bank, who was deputed to appear before the Labour Court, had failed to appear. Therefore, the first respondent Labour Court had passed an award, dated 10. 2000, promoting the third respondent as a Clerk in the petitioner Bank, with effect from 9. 96, with all attendant benefits. In such circumstances, the petitioner Bank had filed the present writ petition, challenging the award of the first respondent Labour Court, dated 10. Therefore, the first respondent Labour Court had passed an award, dated 10. 2000, promoting the third respondent as a Clerk in the petitioner Bank, with effect from 9. 96, with all attendant benefits. In such circumstances, the petitioner Bank had filed the present writ petition, challenging the award of the first respondent Labour Court, dated 10. 2000, made in I.D.No.212 of 1999, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the award of the Labour Court, dated 10. 2000, made in I.D.No.212 of 1999, is against law and the principles of natural justice. It has also been stated that the first respondent Labour Court had not considered the reply filed on behalf of the petitioner before the conciliation officer in its proper perspective. The first respondent Labour Court had erred in coming to the conclusion that the promotion granted to K. Manoharan and N. Natesan by the petitioner management was irregular. Since the third respondent had not challenged the promotions granted to K. Manoharan and N. Natesan at the time of their initial promotion, she cannot be permitted to challenge the same at a later point of time by way of raising an industrial dispute. Since seniority is not the only criteria for granting of promotions, the third respondent cannot claim that she should have been promoted to the post of Clerk in the petitioner Bank, as a matter of right. Therefore, the award of the Labour Court, granting promotion to the third respondent by holding that the promotions granted to K. Manoharan and N. Natesan were irregular is not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Bank had submitted that the award of the Labour Court, dated 10. 2000, made in I.D.No.212 of 1999, cannot be sustained in the eye of law, as it has been passed without considering the fact that K. Manoharan and N. Natesan had been promoted by the petitioner management only after they had challenged their reversion from the promoted post of Clerk to that of salesman before this Court. Further, the third respondent cannot claim her promotion to the post of Clerk in the petitioner Bank as a matter of right. Seniority is not the only aspect to be considered for being promoted to the higher post. Further, the third respondent cannot claim her promotion to the post of Clerk in the petitioner Bank as a matter of right. Seniority is not the only aspect to be considered for being promoted to the higher post. Even though there was no appearance on behalf of the petitioner management and no counter affidavit had been filed, the first respondent Labour Court ought to have analyzed the facts and circumstances in a proper perspective before coming to its conclusions. 6. Per contra the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent had submitted that the third respondent had been employed in the Tamilnadu Consumer Marketing Federation, from 14. 81 to 30.87. Subsequently, by G.O.Ms.No.1204, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 18. 87, she was appointed as a sales woman in the petitioner bank at Antheripatti Fair Price Shop, with effect from 87. Thereafter, on 110. 87, K. Manoharan and N. Natesan were appointed as salesmen in the petitioner Bank. Even though they were juniors to the third respondent, based on their dates of appointment, they were promoted as Clerks on 9. 96, by the then Special Officer, without following the norms or the rules applicable for granting such promotions. Based on the representations made by the third respondent, both K. Manoharan and N. Natesan, had been reverted by an order passed by the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, dated 11. 96, and the said order had also been adopted by the Executive Committee of the petitioner Bank. While so, both K. Manoharan and N. Natesan were again promoted to the post of Clerk, arbitrarily and illegally, without following the procedures established for granting such promotions. In such circumstances, the third respondent had raised a dispute before the Labour Officer. Since the efforts for conciliation had failed, the State Government had referred the dispute for adjudication before the first respondent Labour Court. The first respondent Labour Court had numbered the dispute as I.D.No.212 of 1999, after analyzing all the necessary aspects. Thereafter, the first respondent Labour Court had come to the right conclusion that the promotions granted to K. Manoharan and N. Natesan were irregular. The first respondent Labour Court had also passed an award directing the petitioner management to promote her as a Clerk in the petitioner Bank from 9. 96, with all attendant benefits. 7. Thereafter, the first respondent Labour Court had come to the right conclusion that the promotions granted to K. Manoharan and N. Natesan were irregular. The first respondent Labour Court had also passed an award directing the petitioner management to promote her as a Clerk in the petitioner Bank from 9. 96, with all attendant benefits. 7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner Bank, as well as on behalf of the third respondent and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that there is nothing shown on behalf of the petitioner Bank for this Court to interfere with the award of the first respondent Labour Court, dated 10. 2000, made in I.D.No.212 of 1999. The fact that the third respondent had been appointed as a sales woman, on 10. 87, in the Fair Price Shop run under the petitioner Bank and that K. Manoharan and N. Natesan had been appointed as fertilizer salesmen, on 110. 87, are not in dispute. Further, it is seen that the third respondent had an unblemished record of service and she had undergone cooperative training during the years 1994 to 1995. 8. In spite of the fact that the third respondent had been appointed as a sales woman, on 10. 87, and she was having all the necessary qualifications for being promoted as a Clerk in the petitioner Bank, K. Manoharan and N. Natesan, who were appointed subsequently, on 110. 87, as fertilizer salesmen were promoted as Clerks in the petitioner bank from 9. 96, by the then Special Officer of the petitioner Bank. No reason had been stated for not promoting the third respondent as a Clerk while passing an order promoting K. Manoharan and N. Natesan, even though it was clear that they were juniors to the third respondent considering their dates of appointment as sales persons. Further, no charges had been framed against the third respondent and no enquiry was said to be pending to leave the third respondent out of contention. The first respondent Labour Court had also considered the reply submitted on behalf of the petitioner Bank before the Labour Officer. Further, no charges had been framed against the third respondent and no enquiry was said to be pending to leave the third respondent out of contention. The first respondent Labour Court had also considered the reply submitted on behalf of the petitioner Bank before the Labour Officer. No proper reasons have been shown on behalf of the petitioner bank for preferring K. Manoharan and N. Natesan for promotion to the post of Clerk in the petitioner bank, even though the third respondent was senior to them as she had been appointed as a sales woman on 10. 87 itself. Further, it is not in dispute that both K. Manoharan and N. Natesan were appointed as fertilizer salesmen only on 187. In such circumstances, it is clear that there is no sufficient cause or reason shown by the petitioner bank to interfere with the award of the first respondent Labour Court, dated 10. 2000, made in I.D.No.212 of 1999. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.