ORDER Aggrieved by Award dated 16.07.2012 in Reference Case No.251 of 2001, the Management of Bhelatand Colliery of M/s. TISCO has filed the present writ petition. 2. The brief facts of the case are summerized thus; (i) The respondent-workman was appointed as Assistant Gomosta and after completion of the probation period vide, letter dated 25.12.1982, the respondent-workman was confirmed on the post of Assistant Gomosta w.e.f. 01.01.1983. A claim was raised by the respondent for his regularisation as Gomosta and the dispute was referred vide, Reference No.251 of 2001 for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal. Before the Tribunal on behalf of respondent-workman it was pleaded that the Land Department/Revenue Department of the Management of Bhelatand Colliery consists of Junior Officer, Assistant Gomosta and Gomosta. On the post of Junior Officer, one Shri Poresh Trigunaith worked upto 1995, who was replaced by Shri Rajiv Shekhar. The petitioner was appointed on probation for three months. On the post of Gomosta one U.N. Singhdeo was working, who retired on 28.01.1983. After the retirement of the said U.N. Singhdeo, the post of Gomosta fell vacant and the petitioner started performing duty of Gomosta w.e.f. 28.01.1983. The Management filed its written statement stating that the workman is not covered under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was pleaded that the post of Gomosta has been abolished and the respondent-workman was upgraded to Technical Supervisor, GradeC in terms of S.L.U. w.e.f. 01.07.1993. The claim of the workman was denied on the ground that the post of Gomosta does not exist and he was upgraded under the S.L.U. 3. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the respondent-workman was appointed on the post of Assistant Gomosta on 01.01.1983 and he was performing the duty of 'Gomosta' w.e.f. 01.04.1983, he has not brought on record any evidence to establish that duties performed by him as 'Gomosta' could not have been performed by him while working as Assistant Gomosta. The respondent-workman in the garb of plea of regularisation has, in fact, claimed promotion, which cannot be granted. In support of this plea, the learned counsel for the petitioner refers to Schedule 3 of the Industrial Disputes Act and submits that such a claim cannot be decided by the Industrial Tribunal. The respondent-workman in the garb of plea of regularisation has, in fact, claimed promotion, which cannot be granted. In support of this plea, the learned counsel for the petitioner refers to Schedule 3 of the Industrial Disputes Act and submits that such a claim cannot be decided by the Industrial Tribunal. It is submitted that reference vide, order dated 27.11.2001 itself was invalid inasmuch as, it was not a case of regularisation of the respondent-workman and therefore, award dated 16.07.2012 warrants interference by this Court. It is further submitted that since the respondent-workman was granted Grade - C under the Service Linked Upgradation (S.L.U.) w.e.f. 01.04.1993, he could not have claimed further benefit of promotion. It is thus, submitted that the direction to grant benefit of difference in wages and all consequential benefits w.e.f. 01.04.1983 is an error in law committed by the Industrial Tribunal. 4. Mr. Milan Kr. Dey, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-workman submits that the petitioner has failed to produce document in support of the claim that the post of 'Gomosta' was abolished. It cannot be contended by the petitioner that the respondent-workman was not entitled for benefit of the post of 'Gomosta'. It is submitted that the claim of the petitioner is not for promotion rather, the claim was for benefit accruing to a person working on the post of 'Gomosta' and thus, Industrial Tribunal has not committed an error in law in answering the reference in favour of the workman. Referring to statement of Management's witness, the learned senior counsel for the respondent-workman submits that the Management's own witness has admitted in the cross-examination that the Managing Director is the person competent for abolition or creation of a post and for the non-executive post, it is the General Manager, who takes such a decision. The Management witness has also admitted that no document has been produced on behalf of the Management to establish that the post of 'Gomosta' has been abolished. 5. From the materials brought before the Labour Court, it is apparent that though the petitioner took a specific stand that the post of Gomosta has been abolished, it failed to produce evidence establishing that the post of Gomosta has been abolished. A specific plea was taken by the workman that since 28.01.1983, he has been discharging duty of Gomosta also. From the materials brought before the Labour Court, it is apparent that though the petitioner took a specific stand that the post of Gomosta has been abolished, it failed to produce evidence establishing that the post of Gomosta has been abolished. A specific plea was taken by the workman that since 28.01.1983, he has been discharging duty of Gomosta also. In the written statement filed by the Management the plea taken by the workman has simply been denied, stating that the post of Gomosta has been abolished. On behalf of the respondent-workman descriptions of duties discharged by Gomosta and Assistant Gomosta have been brought on record. The respondent-workman has been confirmed on the post of Assistant Gomosta w.e.f. 01.01.1983, has been admitted by the petitioner. There is no specific qualification for appointment on the post of Gomosta. It is not denied by the petitioner that a person working on the post of Assistant Gomosta is also eligible for appointment on the post of Gomosta. The respondent continued to work as Gomosta for about 20 years and he has claimed benefits of the post of Gomosta. The claim of the workman was for regularisation on the post of Gomosta and not for promotion. The plea that the workman in the garb of regularisation was seeking promotion, is not tenable for the reason that there would be a condition of minimum length of service as an eligibility criteria for promotion on a promotional post. It has come on record that a person appointed on the post of Assistant Gomosta can also be appointed on the post of Gomosta. The benefit of upgradation to Grade “C” is in terms of NCWA and thus, it was automatic on fulfillment of certain conditions. The petitioner has failed to establish that the impugned award suffers from serious error in law. In “Syed Yakoob v. K. S. Radhakrishnan”, reported in AIR 1964 SC 477 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: 7. “..........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. 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. …..........................” 6. Considering the above facts, I find no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed. I.A. No.3903 of 2013, which has been filed for appropriate order granting stay of the operation of the Award dated 16.07.2012, also stands dismissed.