JUDGMENT BY COURT: The petitioner has challenged the award of learned Labour Court, Ranchi rendered in Ref. Case No.8 of 1998. By the impugned award, learned Labour Court has answered the reference in negative. 2. The case of the petitioner-Union is that a dispute was raised on behalf of 81 workmen, claiming, inter alia, that the concerned workmen were appointed by the Management in Grade-E on different dates between the period from 15th June, 1970 to 31st December, 1970. In the said process, about 300 technical hands, including 81 workmen concerned, were appointed between the period from April, 1968 to 31st December, 1970 on different dates in different grades, namely, Cutter, Fitter, Mechanist, Turner etc. All were in Grade-E having same scale of pay and benefits. They were posted at different places. Some were posted in H.M.T.P. Plant, some in F.F.P. and some were in H.M.B.P. Plant of the H.E.C. Ltd. All concerned workmen, being born on same grade in the scale of pay, were promoted to the next higher grade C.D. with effect from 13th August, 1977 and given higher pay scale irrespective of their different dates of appointment. Again in 1984, the said concerned workmen along with others belonging to C.D. Grade were given promotion to higher pay scale with effect from 11th December, 1984. In the year 1984 itself, the Management had appointed one Dr. Binod Kumar to review and advice the promotion policy for non-executive employees of H.E.C. Dr. Binod Kumar submitted his report on 27th July, 1985. The Management by Circular No.53/85 dated 14th October, 1985 accepted and implemented the report of Dr. Binod Kumar Commission with effect from 14th October, 1985. The policy evolved by the said report remained in force for ten years. During that period, the Management issued circular dated 27th July, 1998 for giving promotion to those appointed in Grade-E during the period from 1967 to 1970 to remove the disparity in career growth of I.T.I passed and H.T.I. trained apprentices. Clause-A(2) of the said circular provided as follows: “A(2)the apprentices who joined H.E.C. in Grade-E during the period 4.4.68 to 15.6.70 and under still continuing in Grade B may be considered for promotion to Grade A and if found suitable they may be promoted to Grade A notionally with effect from 28.12.85.” 3. Clause-A(2) of the said circular provided as follows: “A(2)the apprentices who joined H.E.C. in Grade-E during the period 4.4.68 to 15.6.70 and under still continuing in Grade B may be considered for promotion to Grade A and if found suitable they may be promoted to Grade A notionally with effect from 28.12.85.” 3. The grievance of the petitioner was that the Committee was constituted to remove disparity, but failed to clear disparity and the same is arbitrary and contrary to the object to be achieved by the Committee. The same also created a class within the class on the basis of their date of appointment. By the said circular those appointed prior to 15th June, 1970 were given promotion to Grade-A with effect from 28th December, 1985 on higher pay scale, whereas the concerned workmen were made to stagnate in Grade-B in the lower pay scale. The same would also have the effect in promotion to the next higher post of Assistant Foreman and, thereafter, to the post of Junior Manager. As the concerned workmen were promoted to Grade-A in 1990 and Assistant Foreman in 1996, they made demand of justice from the Management though the Union. They also filed application before the Assistant Labour Commissioner. 4. The Assistant Labour Commissioner endeavoured to conciliate the dispute, but conciliation failed and the dispute was referred for adjudication in the following terms: “Whether the up-gradation/promotion given to the workmen working in Grade-E, only in Grade-A, with effect from 28th December, 1995 by fixing 15th June, 1970 as the cutoff date by the Management of M/s. H.E.C., Dhurwa, Ranchi is proper? If not, what relief, the workmen upon joining after 15th June, 1970 are entitled to and from when?” 5. The Management contested the claim by filing written statement, stating, inter alia, that the candidate having I.T.I. Training as also those who had taken training in the Central Training Institute subsequently named as H.E.C. Training Institute were also employed in different technical trades. I.T.I. Trained workers were called as artisans, whereas the C.T.I./H.T.I. Trained workers were called as apprentices. Prior to 1966 I.T.I. Trained persons were appointed in Grade-D before their placement in different plant of the Corporation. I.T.I. Trained workers were called as artisans, whereas the C.T.I./H.T.I. Trained workers were called as apprentices. Prior to 1966 I.T.I. Trained persons were appointed in Grade-D before their placement in different plant of the Corporation. Though the promotion of all the technical workers was in accordance with Circular No.88/64 dated 18th September, 1964, there was clear difference between career promotion of the candidate having I.T.I. Training and those who were apprentices appointed prior to 15th June, 1970. Some of the apprentices were in Grade-D, while some junior apprentices of the same batch were in Grade-A. 6. The grievance was raised by the artisans against the said difference in grade. In order to bring parity in their career growth and to redress their grievance, a circular dated 27th July, 1988 was issued. In view of the said circular, the apprentices, who joined in HEC in Grade-E during the period from 4th April, 1968 to 15th June, 1970 and still continuing in Grade-E, were considered for promotion to Grade-A and those found suitable were promoted to Grade-A notionally with effect from 28th December, 1985. The cutoff date of 15th June, 1970 covered a period from 4th April, 1968. Different cutoff dates were fixed to cover promotion of junior most apprentices working in different plants. By fixing the cutoff date disparity/anomaly in career growth of the apprentices as well as artisans were removed. 7. Learned Labour Court framed three issues for deciding the reference, namely; (i) Whether the reference is maintainable? (ii) Whether the upgradation/promotion given to the workmen working in Grade-E, only in Grade-A with effect from 28th May, 1985 by fixing 15th June, 1970 as the cutoff date by the Management of H.E.C. is proper? (iii) Whether the workmen who joined after 15th June, 1970 are entitled to any relief and if so from when? 8. After considering the facts and evidence on record, learned Labour Court answered the Point No.(i) in favour of the management and held that reference was not maintainable. However, he further held that the terms of the reference was untenable and that the reference was made belatedly regarding stale claim after waiving the right and at the time when the Management sustained loss. 9. However, he further held that the terms of the reference was untenable and that the reference was made belatedly regarding stale claim after waiving the right and at the time when the Management sustained loss. 9. Regarding Point No.(ii), learned Labour Court has held that the circular, fixing cutoff date as 15th June, 1970, is just and proper and the same was in accordance with the spirit of Dr. Binod Kumar Commission's report. 10. Regarding Point No.(iii), learned Labour Court has held that the workmen appointed in Grade-E after 15th June, 1970 is not entitled to any relief. 11. The petitioner has assailed the said findings and the award on the ground, inter alia, that the same are arbitrary and not based on facts and material available on record. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the circular, fixing cutoff date as 15th June, 1970 is not based on any rational basis and the same is imaginary and whimsical. There was no basis for classification of Grade-E employees; (i) who were appointed prior to 15th June, 1970 and (ii) who were appointed after 15th June, 1970. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the award of the learned Labour Court is well considered, legal and valid. The concerned workmen have claimed that the cutoff date of 15th June, 1970 has no basis. W.W.1 examined on behalf of the concerned workmen has admitted that the concerned workmen were given time bound promotion. The workmen appointed after 15th June, 1970 were promoted in 1990. They accepted the said promotion and, thereafter, raised dispute in 1994. The dispute is stale as well as barred by the principle of waiver. The said witness has himself clarified that the workmen who were given promotion on the basis of cutoff date of 15th June, 1970 were earlier appointees. Thus, promotion given, fixing cutoff date 15th June, 1970 has no effect on the promotion of E-Grade employees appointed after 15th June, 1970. 14. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and material on record, I find that the said cutoff date was fixed on the basis of the report of Dr. Binod Kumar Commission. The said Commission had recommended that imbalance crept in the cadre of artisans due to frequent changes is required to be corrected. 14. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and material on record, I find that the said cutoff date was fixed on the basis of the report of Dr. Binod Kumar Commission. The said Commission had recommended that imbalance crept in the cadre of artisans due to frequent changes is required to be corrected. Accordingly, cutoff date of 15th June, 1970 was fixed considering the appointment of the apprentices between 1967 to 1970. The same cannot be said to have caused any disparity in the case of apprentices who were appointed after 15th June, 1970. The disparity was found only in the case of employees of E-Grade appointed till 15th June, 1970. The circular was issued on the basis of the recommendation of Dr. Binod Kumar Commission for removing disparity among the employees of E-Grade, appointed till 15th June, 1970. 15. I find no infirmity or illegality in the conclusion arrived at by the learned Labour Court. The findings of the leaned Labour Court are based on proper appreciation of facts, evidences and material on record and the same are sound and legal. No ground has been made out warranting interference with the impugned award. 16. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.