JUDGMENT : S.N. Prasad, J. The award dated 23.3.1994 passed in Industrial Disputes Case No.144 of 1991 is under challenge by the management. 2. Brief facts of the case of the workman is that he being senior in the seniority list ought to have been granted promotion and his Lineman-C cadre w.e.f. 19.7.1984 and subsequent promotion to the post of Lineman-B w.e.f. 18.10.1989 i.e., the date his juniors are given such benefit. 3. Case of the management on the other hand is that the workman is not entitled to get promotion either in the post of Lineman-C or Lineman-B for the reason that promotion from the basic cadre Lineman-C to Lineman-B is to be given on the basis of regulation known as “OSEB NMR Employees’ Absorption Regulation, 1981” (in short Regulation 1981) as per which the promotion either to the post of Lineman-C or to the post of Lineman-B is to be given by virtue of conducting selectivity test and the workman having not been found successful in the interview and the trade test has not been considered to be promoted to the higher post. 4. The workman being aggrieved with the decision of the Management has raised dispute before the appropriate Government which ultimately culminated into a reference which is being reproduced herein below:- “Whether the action of the Executive Engineer, Bhadrak Electrical Division, Bhadrak in denying absorption to Shri Gopabandhu Pati, presently Lineman-C, Bhandaripokhari Electrical Section No.11 in the post of Lineman-C with effect from 19.7.1984 and subsequent promotion to the post of Lineman-B with effect from 18.10.1989 i.e., the dates his juniors were given such benefit are legal and/or justified ? If not, to what relief is Sri Pati entitled ?” 5. The Labour Court after going into rival submission of the parties has formulated three issues, which is being reproduced herein below:- i. Is the denial of absorption to the N.M.R. workman in the post of Lineman-C w.e.f. 19.7.1984 based on any rule ? ii. Why the juniors of workman were promoted to the rank of Lineman-B with effect from 18.10.1989 overlooking such promotional aspect of Gopabandhu Pati ? iii. Is the action of the management legal and justified ? If not to what relief the workman is entitled ? ii. Why the juniors of workman were promoted to the rank of Lineman-B with effect from 18.10.1989 overlooking such promotional aspect of Gopabandhu Pati ? iii. Is the action of the management legal and justified ? If not to what relief the workman is entitled ? The Labour Court while answering issue no.1 which pertains to the denial of absorption of the NMR workers in the post of Lineman-C w.e.f. 19.7.1984 has been answered in favour of the workman holding therein that the workman is entitled to be absorbed w.e.f. 19.7.1984 in the post of Lineman-C when his juniors were absorbed. So far as Issue No.2 is concerned, which pertains to the promotion of the workman to the rank of Lineman-B w.e.f. 18.10.1989 which has been answered against the workman holding therein that he is not entitled to get promotion/upgradation to the post of Lineman-B w.e.f. 18.10.1989 since he has not found to be successful in the selectivity test which has been conducted under the provision of NMR circular. 6. The management being aggrieved with that finding of Issue no.1 is before this Court by way of this writ petition on the ground i.e., as follows:- i. That the Labour Court while adjudicating the reference has formulated three issues. First issue pertains to admission of absorption of NMR employees in the post of Lineman-C w.e.f. 19.7.1984 and Issue No.2 pertains to denial of the promotion of the workman to the rank of Lineman-B w.e.f. 18.10.1989. The Labour Court has answered Issue No.1 against the management while Issue No.2 answered against the workman. 7. It is the case of the workman that either for the promotion in the rank of Lineman-C or Lineman-B, the management has formulated a Regulation known as “OSEB NMR Employees’ Absorption Regulation, 1981”, wherein the provision has been contained under Regulation 3 that the N.M.R. workers working in the jobs in any establishment under the Board, on completion of 400 working days of continuous service, shall be eligible to be considered for absorption in posts in Regular/workcharged Establishment under Divisions/Circles on the basis of a selection under that establishment, by the authority, competent to fill up the posts, in accordance with the procedure prescribed under these Regulations subject to availability of vacancy. 8. 8. It is the further case of the management that the Committee constituted for any recruitment under Regulations 3(b) shall adopt its own procedure of work and method of conducting interview/test, provided that the committee shall take into consideration the qualification and experience, if any, prescribed by the Board from time to time for appointment against different categories of posts and make selection of personnel to fill up the posts on that basis and that the committee may conduct any written and/or oral/practical test as may be considered necessary having regard to the job to be performed by the candidate against the particular post for making the selection and preparing the select list, in order of merit, which shall be valid for one year from the date of its presentation by the committee. It is further case of the management that the inclusion of a name in the selection list prepared in accordance with Regulation 3 will not confer on a candidate any right for absorption if he is not found suitable by the Appointing Authority on the basis of his performance report as a NMR worker or otherwise. 9. On the basis of these regulations, it has been submitted by the management before the Labour Court that the promotion to the post of Lineman-C or Lineman-B is to be filled up by virtue of selection which means that the promotion is to be done on the basis of merit and seniority, hence the merit will be weightage over and above seniority. The management after following the Regulations, 1981 has constituted a Selection Committee and adopted a procedure under Regulation 3(C) of the Regulations, 1981 but in that procedure the workman has found not to be successful since he came below in the merit list as such the management who was junior in the seniority list since being found successful in the merit list has been granted promotion to the post of Lineman-C or Lineman-B, hence there is no illegality committed by the management. 10. 10. The Labour Court has emphasized upon the Regulations, 1981 so far as it relates to Issue No.1 whereby and where under the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Lineman-C has been allowed but differing with the said reasoning, the Labour Court has answered Issue No.2 in favour of the workman which itself suggests contradictory reasoning as because for Issue No.1 the Regulations, 1981 has not been taken into consideration but for Issue No.2 the Regulations, 1981 has been taken into consideration. In these grounds the award has been challenged. 11. We have gone through the award, pleading of the parties and the original L.C.R. Before appreciating the finding of the Labour Court in the award, it is relevant to discuss the rules governing for the promotion to the post of Lineman-C and Lineman-B cadre thereof. 12. From the record, it appears that Lineman-C and Lineman-B are the hierarchies of the post to be filled up from amongst the Class-IV employees or N.M.R. workers working under the management, for the purpose of regulating conditions of promotion, the management in exercise of power under Section 79(C) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, the management makes a Regulation for absorption of the NMR workers of the Board in Regular Establishment/workcharged Establishment to give effect to the triparties settlement arrived with Unions of the employees of OSEB dated 9.9.1981 and 10.9.1981 is known as “the Orissa State Electricity Board N.M.R. Workers Absorption Regulation, 1981” which came into force with immediate effect. 13. The Regulation, 1981 contains the definition of “N.M.R. workers” which means a worker engaged in an establishment under the Board in jobs as N.M.R. as per the provisions of Orissa P.W.D. Code, for a period of 400 working days of continuous service as on 1.9.1981. 14. Provision of Section 3 deals with the procedure of absorbing the N.M.R. workers, which speaks as follows:- “3.(a) The N.M.R. workers working in jobs in any establishment under the Board, on completion of 400 working days of continuous service, shall be eligible to be considered for absorption in posts in Regular/workcharged Establishment under Divisions/Circles on the basis of a selection under that establishment, by the authority, competent to fill up the posts, in accordance with the procedure prescribed under these Regulations subject to availability of vacancy. (b) The Division shall be the unit for the person whose Appointing Officer is the Executive Engineer or and the Circle shall be unit for the persons whose appointing Officer is the Superintending Engineer, Committees constituted for regularization of workcharged/ NMR vide circular No.19108 dated 31.10.1977 and No.30056 dated 26.10.1979 shall be competent to recommend the names of suitable candidates for appointments to posts in an establishment under Regular or Workcharged Establishment as the case may be after conducting an interview/text of the eligible NMR workers. (c) The Committee constituted for any recruitment under Regulations 3(b) shall adopt its own procedure of work and method of conducting interview/test, provided that the committee shall take into consideration the qualification and experience, if any, prescribed by the Board from time to time for appointment against different categories of posts and make selection of personnel to fill up the posts on that basis and that the committee may conduct any written and/or oral/practical test as may be considered necessary having regard to the job to be performed by the candidate against the particular post for making the selection and preparing the select list, in order of merit, which shall be valid for one year from the date of its presentation by the committee.” 15. Provision of Regulation 4 confers the ultimate power upon the Appointing Authority for absorption by assessing suitability and performance of one or the other candidates. 16. It is evident from Regulation 3(b) that the NMR workers working in jobs in any establishment under the Board, on completion of 400 working days of continuous service, shall be eligible to be considered for absorption in posts in Regular/workcharged Establishment under Divisions/Circles on the basis of a selection under that establishment, by the authority, competent to fill up the posts, in accordance with the procedure prescribed under these Regulations subject to availability of vacancy and Regulation 3(C) stipulates power upon the Committee constituted for constituted for any recruitment under Regulations 3(b) shall adopt its own procedure of work and method of conducting interview/test. 17. 17. It is evident from the Regulation, 1981 that the post of absorption i.e., Lineman-C or Lineman-B is a selection post and if N.M.R. employee wants to be considered for promotion, such employee needs to be eligible for consideration of their candidature and also to participate in the selection procedure formulated by the management in exercise of power conferred under Regulation 3(c). 18. The Management has considered the case of the N.M.R. workers for absorption in the post of Lineman-C and subsequently in the rank of Lineman-B and for that procedure laid down under Regulation 3 of the Regulation, 1981 has been followed by which a selection process has been adopted asking the NMR workers to participate in the selection process. One of the eligibility conditions in the Regulation, 1981 is that the NMR candidate will be considered strictly in accordance with the seniority list. The workman being senior in the seniority list along with others have been considered for promotion to the post of Lineman-C and Lineman-B but having not found suitable in comparison with other candidates, on preparation of merit list has not been considered for promotion which led the workman to raise a dispute and accordingly reference has been made which has been answered partly in favour of the workman and partly in favour of the management. 19. The Labour Court has come to conclusion by giving reliance upon the Regulation, 1981 by stating in the award that no doubt such selection for absorption is subject to the result of interview/trade test but the management has to prove it like the case of promotion to the post of Lineman-B. In absence of any such record and evidence the workman is entitled to be absorbed w.e.f. 19.7.1984, hence answered Issue No.1 in favour of the workman. Issue No.2 has been decided against the workman by holding therein that the workman is not entitled to get promotion to the post of Lineman-B w.e.f. 18.10.1989 by giving reliance upon the Regulation, 1981. 20. We, on examination have found that either for Lineman-C or Lineman-B, the management has formulated a Regulation in the year 1981 governing the rules for promotion by preparing a seniority list for making the NMR eligible to participate in the selection procedure. 20. We, on examination have found that either for Lineman-C or Lineman-B, the management has formulated a Regulation in the year 1981 governing the rules for promotion by preparing a seniority list for making the NMR eligible to participate in the selection procedure. The competent authority has conferred with the power to formulate the procedure to be followed in the matter of promotion either for Lineman-C or Lineman-B. 21. Case of the workman is that he being senior to other workman has been denied his promotion to the post of Lineman-C and Lineman-B rank. 22. There is no dispute about the fact that the workman has been considered for promotion to the rank of Lineman-C or Lineman-B since he has been found to be eligible along with others as per the seniority list and also participated in the selection procedure. The workman along with others has participated in the interview/trade test and on the basis of performance of one or the other candidates merit list was prepared but in the merit list the workman was found to be below and as such subject to availability of vacancy, he has not found to be promoted to the post of Lineman-C w.e.f. 19.7.1984 and Lineman-B w.e.f. 18.10.1989 respectively. 23. But the workman is claiming promotion by virtue of his seniority which cannot be accepted for the reason that when the promotion to a post has been made to a selection post, a procedure has been formulated by giving it a statutory force. In the matter of fulfilling of post by way of promotion the Regulation is to be followed. Since the post of Lineman-C and Lineman-B is a selection post and as such by virtue of only seniority, the workman cannot be given promotion and rightly he has not been given promotion since on consideration, the Selection Committee has found that he came below in the merit in comparison to other candidates and subject to availability of vacancies he could not be promoted to the higher post. 24. The Labour Court while answering Issue No.1 has taken into consideration the provision of the Regulation, 1981, answered in favour of the workman. Issue No.2 which pertains to promotion to the post of Lineman-B, the Regulation, 1981 has not taken into consideration, which according to us is incorrect finding. While for both Issue Nos.1 and 2, the Regulation 1981 will be applicable. Issue No.2 which pertains to promotion to the post of Lineman-B, the Regulation, 1981 has not taken into consideration, which according to us is incorrect finding. While for both Issue Nos.1 and 2, the Regulation 1981 will be applicable. Moreover, answering Issue No.1 the Labour Court has reached to the conclusion that the selection for absorption is subject to the result of interview/trade test but even thereafter it has been answered in favour of the workman even though he has got less marks as has been admitted by the workman. 25. We are aware of the fact that the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India with respect to the matter making interference with the award is very limited, only in case of perversity or error apparent on the face of record, High Court sitting under Article 226 can interfere as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Yakoob Vrs. K. S. Radhakrishnan and others reported in AIR 1964 SC 477 and M/s.Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. Krishna Kant Pandey, (2015) 4 SCC 270 . 26. We after applying the ratio laid down in the cases referred hereinabove, we are of the considered view that the Labour Court while answering the Issue No.1 has not acted judiciously and in complete ignorance of the provision of Regulation, 1981 has answered the Issue No.1 in favour of the workman which is error apparent on the face of record and a perverse finding. Hence, we have no hesitation in holding that the award suffers from infirmity. Accordingly, we sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India hereby set aside the award impugned in this writ petition. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed.