JUDGMENT : Antony Dominic, J. These Appeals Are Filed By The Traco Cable Employees Association, Represented By Its General Secretary. The Issue Raised In The Writ Petitions Against The Judgments Of Which These Appeals Are Filed, Are That On 31.10.2011, The Company Issued A Notification Inviting Applications From the existing employees for promotion to one post of 'Foreman' and two posts of 'Charge Hand'. This eventually led to Exts.P4 to P6 orders which are produced in writ appeal No.131 of 2014, whereby three employees who are party respondents in these cases, were promoted to the aforesaid posts. It appears that there were some protests from the employees and as a result, by Ext.P11 order, produced in W.A. No.131 of 2014, the company kept in abeyance Exts.P4 to P6 orders. It was at that stage, the affected employees filed the Writ Petition No.276 of 2012 and obtained an interim order of stay of Ext.P11 mentioned above. 2. As a counter blast, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.2733 of 2012 challenging Ext.P4 to Ext.P6 orders. The writ petitions were heard together and were disposed of by a common judgment, wherein the learned single Judge set aside Ext.P11 and left it open to the appellant to agitate their grievance before the appropriate forum. The learned single Judge also ordered that a seniority list shall be published. It is in these circumstances, the appellant has filed these appeals. 3. We heard the counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for the management and the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents. 4. Exts.P4 to P6 are sought to be impugned before us, by contending that the same is against the promotion policy and are vitiated by several other illegalities. Though the counsel for the management and the party respondents sought to sustain these orders, we do not think it necessary or appropriate for this Court to go into such a factual adjudication. According to us, the appellant being a trade union and their employees being workman as provided under the Industrial Disputes Act, the proper forum for adjudication of a dispute in the nature of one raised in these appeals, are the forums created under the Industrial Disputes Act itself. It is because of that reason that the learned single Judge has given liberty to the appellant to agitate their grievances before the appropriate forum. It is because of that reason that the learned single Judge has given liberty to the appellant to agitate their grievances before the appropriate forum. Considering the nature of the dispute, this conclusion of the learned single Judge is fully justified. 5. In so far as Ext.P1 is concerned, we notice that it is the contention of the appellant that having declined to interfere with Exts.P4 to P6, the learned single Judge ought to have declined to interfere with Ext.P11 also. However, taking note of the fact that the complaint of the party respondents in so far as Ext.P11 is concerned was that the company having given them promotion has committed an illegality by keeping the same in abeyance. According to us, such a dispute, could have been examined in a proceedings under Article 226, since admittedly the employer is an authority coming under Article 12 of the constitution of India. 6. In such circumstances, we do not find any fault with the judgment of the learned single Judge for having interfered with Ext.P11. 7. In any case, having regard to the fact that the learned single Judge has left open the contentions of the appellant in so far as Exts.P4 to Ext.P6 are concerned, Ext.P11 is not interfered with is of no prejudice to the appellant. In such circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the judgments under appeal. The appeals fail and are dismissed.