JUDGMENT 1. - To assail validity, correctness and propriety of the award dated 13.8.1998 passed by the Industrial Disputes Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jodhpur in Industrial Dispute No.33/92 this petition for writ is preferred. The appropriate Government by a notification dated 28.10.1991 referred an industrial dispute for its adjudication to the labour court in following terms: " D;k Jfedj.k loZ Jh ihjnkuflag] jkes'oj] lsokjke] ekuflag] [ksrflag] txUukFkizlkn] y{e.kjke] i`Fohflag ( ftudk izfrfu/kRo lfpo bUnzk xka/kh ugj jk"V~h; etnwj ;wfu;u ( lwjrx<+ ) 'kk[kk ukpuk tSlyesj us fd;k gS ) dks muds fu;kstd eq[; vfHkU;Urk] bfUnjk xkWa/kh ugj ifj;kstuk] chdkusj ( 2 ) vf/k'kk"kh vfHk;Urk] bUnzk xka/kh ugj ifj;kstuk] 28 oka [k.M] QykSnh }kjk LVksj eqU'kh ,oa lqijokbZtj ds in ij inksUufr ugha djuk mfpr ,oa oS/k gS\ ;fn ugha rks Jfedj.k fdl jkgr dks ikus dk vf/kdkjh gSa\ " 2. As per the statement of claim submitted on behalf of the workmen they were appointed as Mate in work-charged cadre of the respondent department and were declared permanent as per provisions applicable. Under the relevant standing orders viz. The Standing Orders for Workmen Engaged on Work-charged Establishments in the Rajasthan Canal Project they were having an avenue for promotion to the post of Supervisor Gr.I and Store Munshi but the respondents superseded them while making promotions on the post aforesaid by their juniors viz. Padam Singh, Naina Ram, Hari Singh, Kan Singh, Rajesh Kumar and number of other persons. According to the petitioners the first person junior to them was promoted on 24.8.1985, and therefore, they are also entitled to be considered and promoted on the promotional post from the date aforesaid. 3. In written stand of the employer was that up to the year 1990-91 seniority lists of the work-charged employees were maintained at division level and as such promotions were given by considering seniority of the workmen employed within the specific division. In Division No.28, where the petitioners were working, no person junior to them was promoted. The respondent-employer admitted the position that the persons named by the petitioners were employed subsequent to the petitioners but their seniority was reckoned in their own division and not with the petitioners, who were employed in Division - 28. In Division No.28, where the petitioners were working, no person junior to them was promoted. The respondent-employer admitted the position that the persons named by the petitioners were employed subsequent to the petitioners but their seniority was reckoned in their own division and not with the petitioners, who were employed in Division - 28. The petitioners contested their case before the labour court with the stand that as per Clause 50 of the Standing Orders the seniority of all semi permanent and permanent work-charged employees is required to be maintained at department level and the same is required to be published every year in the month of January, as such, the promotion should have been made by taking into consideration seniority of all work-charged employees working in department and not at division basis. 4. Learned labour court while answering reference made to it held that no seniority list up to the level of head of the department was prepared prior to 1990-91, and therefore, the promotions were rightly given at division level and also that no person junior than the petitioners in their division i.e. Division 28 was promoted ignoring their claim. One Rajesh Kumar was working on promotional post in Division 28 and he was admittedly junior than the petitioners but promotion, as a matter of fact, was given to him in Division 24 and then he was transferred to Division 28. The labour court while examining case of the petitioners also observed that the employer should have prepared seniority in accordance with Clause 50 of the Standing Orders and if any promotion given prior to making such a seniority list then those are nothing but provisional promotions. With the findings and observations as said above learned lab our court negatived the claim made by the petitioners in the terms that no illegality was committed by the respondents while making promotions of the persons junior than the petitioners in different divisions. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and considered the rival contentions. 6. With the findings and observations as said above learned lab our court negatived the claim made by the petitioners in the terms that no illegality was committed by the respondents while making promotions of the persons junior than the petitioners in different divisions. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and considered the rival contentions. 6. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the award impugned is that the Standing Order's Clause 50 in most unambiguous terms specifies that the seniority of semi permanent and permanent employees shall be maintained at the level of the head of the department and such seniority list is required to be published in the month of January every year, as such, the respondents should have acted as per applicable provisions and should have made promotions by taking into consideration seniority of all work-charged employees eligible to be considered for promotion as Supervisor Gr.I and Store Munshi at department level. 7. According to learned counsel for the petitioner if the respondents be permitted, as held by labour court to continue with the promotions or to ignore the petitioners for consideration for promotion ignoring Clause 50 of the Standing Orders then that shall be nothing but perpetuity of an illegality. 8. Per contra stand of the respondent-employer is that prior to 1990-91 no seniority list as per Clause 50 of the Standing Orders was existing,and therefore, officers at the division level made promotions to the next higher post from among the work-charged employees working in their division. No person junior than the petitioners was promoted in Division 28 where they were working. Learned counsel for the private respondents adopted stand taken by the respondent-employer. 9. The Standing Orders for Workmen Engaged on Work-charged Establishments in the Rajasthan Canal Project came into force in accordance with Section 7 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 w.e.f. 18.5.1971. An amendment was introduced in the Standing Orders aforesaid on 6.2.1984 by providing for maintenance of seniority list at the level of head of the department. 9. The Standing Orders for Workmen Engaged on Work-charged Establishments in the Rajasthan Canal Project came into force in accordance with Section 7 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 w.e.f. 18.5.1971. An amendment was introduced in the Standing Orders aforesaid on 6.2.1984 by providing for maintenance of seniority list at the level of head of the department. The clause concerned 50 reads as follows: " 50- ofj"Brk fu/kkZj.k ds fy, lkekU; fl)kUr %& 1- fdlh Js.kh fo'ks"k esa ofj"Brk dh x.kuk ml Js.kh esa fujUrj lsok dh rkjh[k ls fxuh tk,xhA 2- fdlh mPprj Js.kh es LFkkukiUu :i ls dh xbZ lsok dks fuEu Js.kh esa ofj"Brk ds fy, fxuk tk,xkA etnwh ds leku le;eku okyh led{k Js.kh dh lsok dks Hkh ofj"Brk ds fy, fxuk tk,xkA 3- ;fn fdlh mPprj Js.kh esa dbZ Hkax lsokdky gks rks mPprj Js.kh esa dsoy vfUre fujUrj lsok vof/k dks gh ml Js.kh esa ofj"Brk ds fy, fxuk tk,xkA 4- fo'ks"k :i ls LFkk;h dkexkjksa dk jSad LFkk;h] Lfkk;hor~ rFkk vLFkk;h dkexkjksa ls ofj"B gksxkA LFkk;h dkexkjksa dk jSad Lfkk;hor~ rFkk vLFkk;h dkexkjksa ls ofj"B gksxk rFkk LFkk;hor~ dkexkjksa dk jSad vLFkk;h dkexkjksa ls ofj"B gksxkA 5- fu;fer izfr"Bku esa dh xbZ lsok dks tks fd lsok fuo`fRr] NaVuh] R;kxi=] lsoksUeqfDr vkfn ds dkj.k lekIr gks xbZ gks] dk;Z izHkkfjr izfr"Bku esa iqu% fu;qfDr ;k ubZ fu;qfDr gksus ij ofj"Brk ds iz;kstukFkZ ugha fxuk tk,xkA 6- odZpktZ ij dk;Zjr v)ZLFkk;h ,oa LFkkbZ Jfedksa dh ofj"Brk lwph foHkkxk/;{k Lrj ij cukbZ tkos vkSj izR;sd o"kZ tuojh ekg esa bls izdkf'kr fd;k tk;sxk rFkk vko';drkuqlkj le; & le; ij blesa la'kks/ku fd;s tkrs jgsaxsA " 10. In view of the Clause 50 aforesaid the employer was under obligation to maintain a seniority list at the level of head of the department but that was not done up to the year 1990-91. If the respondent employer would have acted upon in accordance with the Standing Orders then undoubtedly the petitioners would have been considered from promotion to the next higher posts, those are of Supervisor Gr.I and Store Munshi. It is only because of non-preparation of the seniority list in accordance with Clause 50, promotions were given at division level and those promotions are certainly not proper being not based on a seniority list as per Standing Order 50. It is only because of non-preparation of the seniority list in accordance with Clause 50, promotions were given at division level and those promotions are certainly not proper being not based on a seniority list as per Standing Order 50. If promotions were made in the interregnum period, that is from 1984 till the preparation of the seniority list in the year 1990-91, then those are nothing but provisional promotions and in this regard an observation was also made by the labour court in following terms: " ;gka ;g mYys[kuh; gS fd 1991&92 esa tkjh esV in dh ofj"Brk lwph ds vUr esa fo'ks"k fVIi.kh fy[kh xbZ gS ftlds vuqlkj 01-04-1985 ds i'pkr~ fu;qDr dh ofj"Brk dks izksfotuyh ekuk tk;sxk rFkk 06-02-1984 ls LFkkbZ vkns'kksa esa la'kks/ku ds ckn dh xbZ inksUufr;ksa dks izksfotuyh ekuk x;k gSA bl rjg izrhr gksrk gS fd 1991&92 esa tkjh lqijokbZtj@LVksj eqU'kh ds inksa dh ofj"Brk lwfp esa Hkh bl rjg fVIi.kh yxkbZ xbZ gS vFkkZr [k.Mh; Lrj ij igys ;k ckn esa inksUufr;ksa ds vk/kkj ij gq, ifj.kke o ofj"Brk vHkh Hkh fopkjk/khu gSA " 11. It appears that the respondents instead of treating those promotions provisionally made the same final. In such circumstances non-consideration for promotion of the petitioners is certainly bad and their stand that they have been superseded by their juniors appears to be justified. There was no occasion, as a matter of fact, for the employer to make promotions at division level when the seniority of the work-charged employees is required to be maintained at head of department level. Learned labour court instead of relying upon the provisions of Standing Orders erroneously based its finding on an illegal act of the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents-employees, to whom promotions were accorded prior to the petitioners, also failed to satisfy me as to how non-consideration of the petitioners for promotion as Supervisor Gr.I and Store Munshi can be held valid though they are senior than them. 12. For the reasons stated above this petition for writ deserves acceptance, and therefore, the same is allowed. The award dated 13.8.1998 passed by the Industrial Disputes Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jodhpur is quashed. 12. For the reasons stated above this petition for writ deserves acceptance, and therefore, the same is allowed. The award dated 13.8.1998 passed by the Industrial Disputes Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jodhpur is quashed. The reference made by the appropriate Government by the notification dated 28.10.1991 is answered in the terms that the employer Chief Engineer, Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojana, Bikaner and Executive Engineer, Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojana, 28 Division, Phalodi were not justified in denying the consideration for promotion to the workmen S/Sh. Peerdan Singh, Ramehswar, Sewaram, Man Singh, Khet Singh, Jagannath Prashad, Laxman Ram and Prithvi Singh (represented by Secretary, Indira Gandhi Nahar Rashtriya Mazdoor Union - Suratgarh, Branch-Nachna, Jaisalmer). The workmen are further declared entitled to be considered for promotion as Supervisor Gr.I/Store Munshi from the date the persons junior to them were promoted i.e. 24.8.1985. The petitioners are also declared entitled for all consequential benefits including consideration for promotion to the next higher post. However, pay fixation in the event of grant of promotion may be made on notional basis.Writ Petition Allowed. *******