ORDER : P. Jyothimani, J. 1. The writ petition is directed against the award of the Labour Court in I.D. No. 189/1997 dated March 4, 2002. The second respondent has raised the industrial dispute praying for a direction to the petitioner management to promote one of its members, viz., Sivashanmugam as Junior Engineer and that came to be allowed under the impugned award directing the petitioner to grant promotion as Junior Engineer to the said Sivashanmugam from January 1, 1987 and also to grant notional promotion with direction for payment of monetary benefits. 2. The said Sivashanmugam, a member of the second respondent Union was employed as an Electrician from February 14, 1983. He was a holder of diploma in Electrical Engineering and his services were regularized by the petitioner with effect from October 25, 1983. When the petitioner management desired to make appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical), the said Sivashanmugam applied for the same on June 14, 1983, which was returned on September 23, 1983 stating that the second respondent did not possess C-licence. (a) After obtaining C-licence, the said Sivashanmugam again renewed his application on January 9, 1987 for the post of Junior Engineer and the same was not considered. After completion of 10 years of service, the said Sivashanmugam on May 14, 1993 applied for promotion as Junior Engineer. By order dated September 9, 1993, the petitioner management redesignated the post of Electrician as Technical Assistant and by order dated March 22, 1995, the said Sivashanmugam was granted selection grade on completion of 10 years of service and designated as Selection Grade; Technical Assistant with effect from November 24, 1993 giving monetary benefits for the said post with effect from January 1, 1995 by not granting the benefit from November 24, 1993. (b) It has been the case of the second respondent Union that the said Sivashanmugam having qualified to the post of Junior Engineer, has been denied promotion by the petitioner management. It is stated that a person who joined in service of the petitioner after the date of joining of the said Sivashanmugam, by name, A.Subramaniam was made as Junior Engineer even in May, 1983 and when the said Subramaniam was promoted as Junior Engineer, he was not even having C-licence and even as on date, he has not obtained such licence. Thereafter, the said Subramaniam has been promoted to the further post of Assistant Manager and he is working in the said capacity. (c) Further, one Murugesan who joined on January 27, 1986 was promoted as Junior Engineer and he is also not having C-licence and there are many other persons like, Manikannan, Selvaraj, Shanmugam and Mohan who were appointed on September 29, 1995 as Junior Engineers and one of them was not having C-licence. It is also stated that on January 8, 1996, the management conducted interview among the outsiders and appointed two persons as Junior Engineers by ignoring the said Sivashanmugam. It is stated that the said Sivashanmugam made a representation on January 25, 1996 for promotion and the denial of the same is unfair labour practice. It was with the above averments, the second respondent Union approached the Labour Court. 3. The petitioner Management in the counter filed before the Labour Court has stated that after completion of 10 years of service, the said Sivashanmugam was granted Selection Grade and monetary benefits were granted with effect from January 1, 1995. In respect of the employees working in the petitioner management, it is the Committee which alone should decide as to the benefits to be conferred and based on the resolution of the Committee dated January 27, 1995, Selection Grade was granted to the said Sivashanmugam. While denying that Murugesan was promoted as Junior Engineer, it is stated that as per the service records, Subramaniam was appointed as Junior Engineer on May 2, 1983 and in respect of other persons viz., Manikannan, Shanmugam, Mohan, etc. as per the service rules, for the post of Junior Engineer from Diploma Holders, selection has to be done by interview and therefore, all the persons eligible were directed to participate in the interview in which Sivashanmugam also appeared before the Selection Committee, however, the Selection Committee selected only Manikannan, Shanmugam, Mohan and Selvaraj for promotion as Junior Engineers. Therefore, it was the case of the petitioner Management before the Labour Court that the selection and promotion to the post of Junior Engineer has been done by the Committee and the same cannot be said to be illegal. 4. Therefore, it was the case of the petitioner Management before the Labour Court that the selection and promotion to the post of Junior Engineer has been done by the Committee and the same cannot be said to be illegal. 4. Before the Labour Court, the second respondent as well as the petitioner did not examine any witness, however, on the second respondent's side 12 documents were marked as Exhibits W-1 to W-12 and on the side of petitioner management 18 documents were marked as Exhibits M-1 to M-18. The Labour Court found that as per Exhibit W-1, the appointment of Sivashanmugam was as per Union Rules and also directions and regulations of the Federation issued from time to time. The Labour Court has also found that as per the service record of the said Sivashanmugam, after completion of 10 years of service, he was granted selection grade. 5. On reference to the records of the management, the Labour Court found that fixation of pay and appointments apart from promotions have been done by the Committee and there has been no reason to believe that in the case of Sivashanmugam there is illegal intention or unfair labour practice. The Labour Court also found that the said Sivashanmugam who was originally appointed as Electrician and subsequently made as Technical Assistant cannot compare himself with the persons who were appointed as Junior Engineers and held that the said Sivashanmugam cannot claim that he has to be appointed as Junior Engineer from 1983. However, in the meantime, the said Sivashanmugam qualified himself and in spite of it, because of censure order passed against him by way of punishment in the year 1985, the promotion was not given and due to the pendency of punishment, the promotion was withheld upto 1986. However, when as per Exhibit W-4, the said Sivashanmugam made a request on January 9, 1987 for promoting him as Junior Engineer, the Labour Court found that he should have been promoted from January 9, 1987 not from 1983 as claimed by Sivashanmugam. The Labour Court has specifically found that on September 23, 1983 when the said Sivashanmugam was not promoted as Junior Engineer, the same cannot be found fault with, but when he obtained C-licence and as on January 9, 1987 he was eligible, he ought to have been promoted since he got competent certificate by that time. 6. The Labour Court has specifically found that on September 23, 1983 when the said Sivashanmugam was not promoted as Junior Engineer, the same cannot be found fault with, but when he obtained C-licence and as on January 9, 1987 he was eligible, he ought to have been promoted since he got competent certificate by that time. 6. On a reference from this Court, the documents were produced including the by-laws of the Co-operative Societies and the same were perused and as correctly found by the Labour Court, the deferment of promotion to the said Sivashanmugam was due to the order of censure and after the censure period was over, certainly the said Sivashanmugam should have been considered for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer and the finding in respect of non-consideration of Sivashanmugam to the post of Junior Engineer from the date viz., January 9, 1987 cannot be said to be either perverse or illegal. 7. Even though there are substance and justification for the decision of the Labour Court, it is relevant to point out that the Labour Court has lost sight of the fact that the said Sivashanmugam chose to raise dispute in respect of his claim from 1987, only in the year 1997 and in spite of it, the Labour Court directed the notional benefits to be conferred from 1987, which, in my considered view, is not reasonable. The law is well settled that backwages or notional promotion are not automatic and a matter of course but the same depends upon the conduct of parties. 8. On the facts of the present case, when it is not in dispute that the said Sivashanmugam was originally appointed as Electrician which post was later redesignated as Technical Assistant, other persons referred to by him were originally appointed as Junior Engineers and therefore, there can be no comparison at all and if at all there is a comparison, it is only in respect of four persons appointed as Junior Engineers by promotion by order dated September 29, 1995, marked as Exhibit W-10. Therefore, while comparing the reasonings of the Labour Court, I am of the considered view that notional promotion to be given to the said Sivashanmugam has to be from the date of Exhibit W-10 viz., September 29, 1995 instead of the date of Exhibit W-4, viz., January 1, 1987 with the monetary benefits from the date of award of the Labour Court viz., March 4, 2002. Accordingly, while confirming the reasonings in the award of the Labour Court, the award is modified as follows: The Said Sivashanmugam, a member of the second respondent Union shall be entitled to notional promotion for the post of Junior Engineer with effect from September 29, 1995 viz., from the date when his juniors were promoted under Exhibit W-10, with monetary benefits with effect from the date of award of the Labour Court viz., 4.3.2002. The writ petition is partly allowed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.