JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, Judge 1. The instant Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby the impugned award of 4.8.2005 rendered by the learned Presiding Judge, Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) stood partly allowed to the extent of the workmen standing tenably bestowed by the Tribunal the relief of the employer providing them ear defenders and sound proof cabins whereas the findings recorded by the Tribunal qua the entitlement of the appellant/workmen herein for parity of pay with Turbine Operators as also the relief of the workmen standing entitled for designation as Turbine Operators stood both quashed and set aside. 2. The industrial dispute, raised by the workmen through the Union impleaded as appellant/workmen herein stands encapsulated in the demand charter embodied in Annexure A-1, which stands reproduced as under: “That S/Shri Sikander Lal Saini (2) Parkash Chand (3) Jogisher Ram (4) Gian Chand (5) Sadhu Ram (6) Omkar Singh (7) Tek Chand (8) Dhobi Chand (9) Gian Singh Bist (10) Naresh Kuar (11) Gurdev Ram and (12) Raj Mal are working as Turbine Operator instead of Machine Attendant, thus all the workmen are entitled designation as Turbine Operator from their engagement as Machine Attendant with you.” 3. On the afore-extracted industrial dispute standing raised by the workmen through their representative body impleaded as appellant/workmen herein, sequelled its standing forwarded to the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, Zone Mandi, District Mandi, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Conciliation Officer’). The latter initiated conciliatory proceedings for resolving the dispute inter se the respondents herein and the aggrieved workmen. The conciliatory efforts of the Conciliation Officer for amicably putting at rest the industrial dispute inter se the workmen and their employer i.e. the respondents herein proved abortive. Consequently, on failure of conciliatory mechanism for resolving the industrial dispute inter se the appellant/workmen herein and the respondents herein constrained “the Conciliation Officer” concerned to transmit the matter to the competent authority of the “appropriate Government”. On the competent authority of the “appropriate Government” hence standing seized of the industrial dispute comprised in Annexure A-1 stood, on its thoroughly applying its mind to the apposite material before it constrained to make a reference of the industrial dispute to the Tribunal concerned. On the competent authority of the “appropriate Government” hence standing seized of the industrial dispute comprised in Annexure A-1 stood, on its thoroughly applying its mind to the apposite material before it constrained to make a reference of the industrial dispute to the Tribunal concerned. The Tribunal on an appraisal of the evidence adduced before it on the apposite issues struck by it on the pleadings laid before it by the contesting parties, answered the reference in favour of the appellant/workmen herein. 4. The respondents herein standing aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal took to impugn it by preferring a writ petition before this Court. Civil Writ Petition No.1252 of 2005 was adjudicated upon by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 26th December, 2007. In his decision, the learned Single Judge partly accepted the writ petition inasmuch as he set aside the award of the Tribunal whereby the latter on an appraisal of material before it held the appellant/workmen herein to stand entitled for claiming theirs being designated as Turbine Operators besides also set aside the award of the Tribunal affording parity of pay to the workmen with the one prescribed for availment by Turbine Operators whereas the learned Single Judge upheld the findings recorded by the Tribunal of the employers providing ear defenders and sound proof cabins to the appellant/workmen herein. 5. For gauging the tenacity of the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge of this Court while reversing the findings recorded by the Tribunal qua the workmen even when they stand designated as Machine Attendants theirs rather discharging the duties of Turbine Operators, sequelly fastening in them an indefeasible right for entitlement for parity of pay vis-a-vis the scale prescribed in Annexure A-6/T for availment by Turbine Operators, it is imperative to advert to the reasons which hence prevailed upon the learned Single Judge of this Court. The learned Single Judge in upsetting the findings of the Tribunal to the afore-referred extent had accorded two reasons: (i) the inability of the workmen to prove the factum of theirs performing the callings of Turbine Operators (ii) a disclosure in Annexure P-2 of the appellant/workmen herein standing designated as Power Plant /Machine Attendants which designation as stood officially accorded to them by the respondents herein being undisturbable especially when its ascription qua them being the sole prerogative of the respondents herein. The reasons as stand afforded by the learned single Judge of this Court in dispelling the findings recorded by the Tribunal of the appellant/workmen herein even when standing designated as Machine Attendants theirs rather at the plant of the respondents herein rendering therein work of Turbine Operators sequelly lending empowerment for theirs foisting a claim of theirs standing entitled to parity of pay with the one prescribed in Annexure A-6/T for availment thereof by Turbine Operators, stands emaciated besides is rendered legally frail for the reasons: (1) a perusal of the record of the Tribunal divulging an order standing recorded in the morning of 4.8.2005 with a disclosure therein of/upon a bilateral consent of the counsel for the parties at contest before it, the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal proceeding to inspect the premises of the respondents herein for detecting thereupon the factum of the appellant/workmen herein performing therein their averred work of Turbine Operators. On the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal inspecting the premises/plant of the respondents herein he recorded a graphic disclosure in his award of his thereupon detecting the appellant/workmen herein performing therein work of Turbine Operators. The surfacing of the pre-eminent fact of the appellant/workmen herein on standing detected by the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal on the latter visiting the plant of the respondents herein palpably reflective of theirs performing therein work/duties of Turbine Operators obviously stood purveyed besides reproduced by him in his impugned award moreso with its constituting a grooved besides an entrenched ground for bolstering the affording by him to the appellant/workmen herein the relief of parity of pay with the one prescribed in Annexure A-6/T for availment by the Turbine Operators. The upsurging of the aforesaid factum on the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal visiting the plant of the respondents herein remains un-controverted. 6. The grounds, as elucidated in Civil Writ Petition, instituted by the respondents herein for assailing the award of the Tribunal, though personify therein the propriety of the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal visiting the plant of the respondents herein especially when his visit thereto stood not prodded by any bilateral consent purveyed to him by the contesting parties, obviously stands espoused to hence render unsustainable the detection by him on his visiting the plant of the respondents herein, of the workmen performing therein the work of Turbine Operators. However, the aforesaid ground as espoused by the counsel for the respondents herein to estop this Court from imputing any reliance to the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal visiting/inspecting the plant of the respondents herein whereupon he detected the workmen performing therein work of Turbine Operators stands to be discountenanced for the solitary reason ingrained in the factum of no apposite material existing on record in display of the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal at the stage contemporaneous to his visiting the plant of the respondents herein having commanded the workmen to perform the callings of Turbine Operators. Necessarily when the workmen were detected by the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal on his visiting the plant of the respondents herein to perform therein the callings of Turbine Operators as a corollary the performance by them of the callings of Turbine Operator therein is construable to be neither colourable nor at the behest of the Presiding Officer rather theirs as portrayed by Annexure A-5 wherein they stood also peremptorily enjoined to look after all the power House Turbines/Generators in the plant of the respondents herein, hence they are to be construable to even when they stood designated as Machine Attendants theirs performing at the plant of the respondents herein the work of Turbine Operators. The colourability, if any, acquired by the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal visiting/inspecting the plant of the respondents herein whereupon he detected the workmen therein performing the callings of Turbine Operators which spurred a conclusion from him of theirs hence standing entitled to draw a pay equal to the one prescribed under Annexure A-6/T for availment by Turbine Operators, would stand surged only on the respondents herein apart from rearing in the writ petition a ground for impeaching the award of the Tribunal on the score of the propriety of Presiding Officer of the Tribunal visiting their plant having concerted to adduce material in displacement of findings recorded by the Tribunal qua the workmen performing at the plant of the respondents herein the callings of Turbine Operators. Adduction of material in displacement of findings recorded in the award of the Tribunal of the workmen standing detected by its Presiding Officer on his visiting the plant of the respondents herein performing therein the callings of Turbine Operators may have constrained this Court to irrever the visit of the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal to the plant of the respondents herein besides would have filliped a concomitant inference from this Court of any rearing of any deduction thereupon by him of the workmen performing therein callings of Turbine Operator being wholly unvindicable, obviously warranting this Court to remand the matter to the Tribunal for receiving evidence thereon besides directing it to adjudicate the reference afresh. In aftermath, the mere espousal by the respondents herein in the grounds of civil writ petition of no bilateral consent by the counsels of the contesting parties standing purveyed to the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal for facilitating his visiting the plant of the respondents herein rendering his visit thereto standing ingrained with impropriety when stands unaccompanied by any relevant material in displacement of/or for repelling the findings recorded in the award of the Tribunal of its Presiding Officer on his inspecting the plant of the respondents herein having thereupon unearthed the workmen performing therein the callings of Turbine Operators constrains this Court to record the inferences of (i) the findings recorded by the Presiding Officer in his award of his on his visiting the plant of the respondents herein having detected the workmen therein to be performing the work of Turbine Operators stand un-eroded (ii) his visit to the plant of the respondents herein being a sequel to a bilateral consent standing purveyed to him by the contesting parties before him especially given a vivid portrayal by an order of 4.8.2005 existing on the file of the Tribunal of the counsels representing the contesting parties before it having purveyed a consent to its Presiding Officer inspecting the plant of the respondents herein significantly with no evidence to repel the factum recorded therein robs the vigour of the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents herein of the counsel representing it before the Tribunal having not purveyed any consent to the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal holding an inspection of their plant. Even otherwise, solemnity is enjoined to be imbued to orders aforesaid recorded on the file of the Tribunal unless an oblique motive stands imputed to its Presiding Officer. However, when no oblique motive stands imputed to the Presiding Officer in his inspecting the plant/premises of the respondents herein nor when obviously proof in sustenance thereof stands adduced, the visit by the Presiding officer of the Tribunal to the plant of the respondents herein does not reek of any oblique motive nor is ingrained with any tinge of impropriety rather appears to stand prodded for unearthing the veracity of the averments of the workmen of theirs therein performing the callings of Turbine Operators, especially when the best evidence in proof thereof stood un-adduced besides camouflaged by the employers with an ulterior motive to not bestow upon them a tenable relief as claimed by them for partity of pay with Turbine Operators. In sequel, in the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal proceeding to uncover or unearth by inspecting or visiting the plant/premises of the employer the apposite evidence in proof of the factum probandum yet throughout camouflaged or hidden from the glance of the Tribunal would never reek of any tinge of impropriety. (iii) the conclusivity hence standing imbued to the findings recorded in the impugned award of Operators paves way for an apt conclusion of the workmen herein performing at their plant the callings of Turbine Operators especially when the withholding of the disclosures aforesaid by the respondents herein gives leverage to the drawing of an adverse inference there-from against the respondents herein. 7. Concomitantly, the disaffording by the learned Single Judge of this Court to the workmen herein parity of pay with the Turbine Operators as spelt out in Annexure A-6/T especially when for reasons afore-stated they were performing at the plant of the respondents herein work of Turbine Operators was grossly untenable. Moreover, with potent, unimpeachable afore-referred evidence existing on record in display thereof besides it standing neither proven to be inadmissible nor discardable, its ouster by the learned Single Judge of this Court tantamounted to its sequelling gross mis-carriage of justice. Moreover, with potent, unimpeachable afore-referred evidence existing on record in display thereof besides it standing neither proven to be inadmissible nor discardable, its ouster by the learned Single Judge of this Court tantamounted to its sequelling gross mis-carriage of justice. Even when the relevant and apt evidence aforesaid stood untenably discarded by the learned Single Judge of this Court his recording in his decision of the workmen not proving theirs performing at the plant of the respondents herein the callings of Turbine Operators was compatibly an inapt exercise especially when his omitting to dwell upon potent/admissible evidence on the apposite issue in proof whereof onus stood cast upon them in discharge of/or in display whereof the tenable visit for reasons afore-stated thereto by its Presiding Officer whereupon the factum probandum aforesaid stood clinched was rather hence amenable for its standing construed as admissible besides potent evidence in discharge of the onus aforesaid. Sequelly, his rather proceeding to impute sanctity to the mere factum of the workmen omitting to adduce evidence before the Tribunal qua theirs performing the callings of Turbine Operators at the plant of the respondents herein led him to erroneously conclude qua the respondents herein standing disentitled to claim parity of pay to the one available to be drawn by the Turbine Operators. 8. The implanting of the aforesaid ground by the learned Single Judge in dis-affording relief to the workmen qua their entitlement to pay at par with the one prescribed for availment by the Turbine Operators falls squarely within the domain of an inhibition cast upon a writ Court in evaluating besides re-appreciating evidence especially when this Court in its exercise of writ jurisdiction is not an appellate Court, power whereof stands reposed solitarily in the latter Court. In the learned Single Judge of this Court discarding evidence which otherwise is both admissible as well as cogent besides his sidelining it or throwing it overboard merely by his implanting in his decision a rule of procedure of onus on the apposite issue not standing discharged by the workmen whereas for reasons afore- stated it stood discharged at the instance of the workmen herein, obviously led it to deny relief of parity of pay to the workmen at par with the one prescribed for availment by Turbine Operators especially when cogent proof emanated qua theirs though standing designated as Machine Attendants theirs rather performing at the plant of the respondents herein the callings of Turbine Operators. 9. The question is - whether the Writ Court can sit as an Appellate Court and set aside the award made by the Labour Court, which is based on evidence? The answer is in the negative for the following reasons: 10. The Apex Court in the case titled as Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi versus M/s. Hindalco Industries Ltd., reported in 2014 AIR SCW 3157, held that the findings of fact recorded by Tribunal as a result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be questioned in writ proceedings and the Writ Court cannot act as an Appellate Court. It is profitable to reproduce para 18 of the judgment herein: “18. A careful reading of the judgments reveals that the High Court can interfere with an Order of the Tribunal only on the procedural level and in cases, where the decision of the lower courts has been arrived at in gross violation of the legal principles. The High Court shall interfere with factual aspect placed before the Labour Courts only when it is convinced that the Labour Court has made patent mistakes in admitting evidence illegally or have made grave errors in law in coming to the conclusion on facts. The High Court granting contrary relief under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution amounts to exceeding its jurisdiction conferred upon it. Therefore, we accordingly answer the point No. 1 in favour of the appellant.” 11. This Court has also laid down the same principle in a batch of writ petitions, CWP No. 4622 of 2013, titled as M/s Himachal Futuristic Communications Ltd. versus State of HP and another, being the lead case, decided on 04.08.2014. Therefore, we accordingly answer the point No. 1 in favour of the appellant.” 11. This Court has also laid down the same principle in a batch of writ petitions, CWP No. 4622 of 2013, titled as M/s Himachal Futuristic Communications Ltd. versus State of HP and another, being the lead case, decided on 04.08.2014. It is worthwhile to reproduce para 13 of the judgment herein: "13. Applying the test to the instant case, the question of fact determined by the Tribunal cannot be made subject matter of the writ petition and more so, when the writ petitioner(s) have failed to prove the defence raised, in answer to the references before the Tribunal." 12. This Court in a series of cases, being CWP No. 4622 of 2013 (supra); LPA No. 485 of 2012, titled as Arpana Kumari versus State of H.P. and others, decided on 11th August, 2014; LPA No. 23 of 2006, titled as Ajmer Singh versus State of H.P. and others, decided on 21st August, 2014; and LPA No. 125 of 2014, titled as M/s. Delux Enterprises versus H.P. State Electricity Board Ltd. & others, decided on 21st October, 2014; while relying upon the latest decision of the Apex Court in Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi versus M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd., reported in 2014 AIR SCW 3157, has held that question of fact cannot be interfered with by the Writ Court. However, such findings can be questioned if it is shown that the Tribunal/Court has erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence or has erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned findings. It is apt to reproduce paras 16, 17 and 18 of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi's case (supra) herein: “16. …............ The question about the limits of the jurisdiction of High Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari under Article 226 has been frequently considered by this Court and the true legal position in that behalf is no longer in doubt. A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals: these are cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals without jurisdiction, or is in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals: these are cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals without jurisdiction, or is in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. A writ can similarly be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the court or tribunal acts illegally or improperly, as for instance, it decides a question without giving an opportunity to be heard to the party affected by the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed to principles of natural justice. There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior court or tribunal as result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ court. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised..................... 17. The judgments mentioned above can be read with the judgment of this court in Harjinder Singh’s case ( AIR 2010 SC 1116 ) (supra), the relevant paragraph of which reads as under: “21. Before concluding, we consider it necessary to observe that while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution in matters like the present one, the High Courts are duty-bound to keep in mind that the Industrial Disputes Act and other similar legislative instruments are social welfare legislations and the same are required to be interpreted keeping in view the goals set out in the Preamble of the Constitution and the provisions contained in Part IV thereof in general and Articles 38, 39(a) to (e), 43 and 43-A in particular, which mandate that the State should secure a social order for the promotion of welfare of the people, ensure equality between men and women and equitable distribution of material resources of the community to subserve the common good and also ensure that the workers get their dues. More than 41 years ago, Gajendragadkar, J. opined that: “10. … The concept of social and economic justice is a living concept of revolutionary import; it gives sustenance to the rule of law and meaning and significance to the ideal of welfare State.”(State of Mysore v. Workers of Gold Mines, AIR 1958 SC 923 p.928, para 10.) 18. A careful reading of the judgments reveals that the High Court can interfere with an Order of the Tribunal only on the procedural level and in cases, where the decision of the lower courts has been arrived at in gross violation of the legal principles. The High Court shall interfere with factual aspect placed before the Labour Courts only when it is convinced that the Labour Court has made patent mistakes in admitting evidence illegally or have made grave errors in law in coming to the conclusion on facts. The High Court shall interfere with factual aspect placed before the Labour Courts only when it is convinced that the Labour Court has made patent mistakes in admitting evidence illegally or have made grave errors in law in coming to the conclusion on facts. The High Court granting contrary relief under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution amounts to exceeding its jurisdiction conferred upon it. Therefore, we accordingly answer the point No. 1 in favour of the appellant.” [Emphasis added] 13. Our this view is also fortified by the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Iswarlal Mohanlal Thakkar versus Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. & Anr., reported in 2014 AIR SCW 3298. It is apt to reproduce para 9 of the judgment herein: "9. We find the judgment and award of the labour court well-reasoned and based on facts and evidence on record. The High Court has erred in its exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to annul the findings of the labour court in its Award as it is well settled law that the High Court cannot exercise its power under Article 227 of the Constitution as an appellate court or re-appreciate evidence and record its findings on the contentious points. Only if there is a serious error of law or the findings recorded suffer from error apparent on record, can the High Court quash the order of a lower court. The Labour Court in the present case has satisfactorily exercised its original jurisdiction and properly appreciated the facts and legal evidence on record and given a well reasoned order and answered the points of dispute in favour of the appellant. The High Court had no reason to interfere with the same as the Award of the labour court was based on sound and cogent reasoning, which has served the ends of justice. It is relevant to mention that in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr. The High Court had no reason to interfere with the same as the Award of the labour court was based on sound and cogent reasoning, which has served the ends of justice. It is relevant to mention that in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr. v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329 , with regard to the limitations of the High Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227, it was held in para 49 that- "The power of interference under Art.227 is to be kept to a minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts subordinate to the High Court." It was also held that- "High Courts cannot, at the drop of a hat, in exercise of its power of superintendence under Art. 227 of the Constitution, interfere with the orders of tribunals or courts inferior to it. Nor can it, in exercise of this power, act as a court of appeal over the orders of the court or tribunal subordinate to it." Thus it is clear, that the High Court has to exercise its power under Article 227 of the Constitution judiciously and to further the ends of justice. In the case of Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, (2010) 3 SCC 192 , this Court held that, "20. ..... In view of the above discussion, we hold that the learned Single Judge of the High Court committed serious jurisdictional error and unjustifiably interfered with the award of reinstatement passed by the Labour Court with compensation of Rs.87,582 by entertaining a wholly unfounded plea that the appellant was appointed in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and the Regulation." 14. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in LPA No.143 of 2015, decided on 15th December, 2015, titled as Gurcharan Singh (deceased) through LRs versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, has laid down the same principle. 15. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in LPA No.143 of 2015, decided on 15th December, 2015, titled as Gurcharan Singh (deceased) through LRs versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, has laid down the same principle. 15. Dehors the above, the revelations in Annexure A-4 of the workmen though standing designated as Machine Attendants theirs operating Turbines installed in the plant of the respondents herein hence the demand of the workmen for their designation as Machine Attendants amenable to alteration to Turbine Operators besides vindicable gives sinew and sanctity to the germane fact recorded in the award of the Tribunal of on its Presiding Officer on a bilateral consent of the counsel for the contesting parties before him, visiting the plant of the respondents herein, his thereupon detecting the appellant/workmen performing therein the callings of Turbine Operators, on anchorage whereof he tenably formed an entrenched conclusion of the appellant/workmen herein standing entitled to parity of pay with Turbine Operators as spelt out in Annexure A-6/T. The aforesaid manifestation in Annexure A-4 enfeebles the vigour of the contention of the respondents herein of the workmen not discharging at the plant of the respondents herein the callings of Turbine Operators. The vigour acquired by the aforesaid formidable conclusion formed by the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal conjunctively construed with the depiction in Annexure A-6/T of posts of Turbine Operators available for deployment of the appellant/workmen thereon renders frail the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents herein qua the unavailability of posts of Turbine Operators at the plant of the respondents herein besides weakens the argument built thereupon by the learned counsel for the respondents herein of the appellant/workmen herein hence standing disentitled to claim parity of pay with Turbine Operators even if they are performing work in congruity thereof. Furthermore, even if the learned Single Judge of this Court concluded of it being a prerogative of the employer to re-designate or change the designation of its employees from the hitherto designation yet the aforesaid findings would not obstruct the appellant/workmen herein for the reasons afore-stated to as tenably concluded in the impugned award of the Tribunal from pressing for their legitimate entitlement of parity of pay with the one prescribed under Annexure A-6/T for availment by Turbine Operators. 16. Having said so, the Writ Court/learned Single Judge has fallen in an error in passing the impugned judgment. 17. 16. Having said so, the Writ Court/learned Single Judge has fallen in an error in passing the impugned judgment. 17. For the reasons afore-stated, the instant letters patent appeal so far as the question of entitlement of the appellant/workmen herein for parity of pay with Turbine Operators as also the relief of the workmen standing entitled for designation as Turbine Operators stands allowed and the writ petition stands dismissed. The award of the Tribunal is affirmed and maintained. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. No costs.