JUDGMENT : A.S. Supehia, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgement dated 24.08.2004 passed in Special Civil Application No. 3382 of 1990, wherein and whereby the learned Single Judge has quashed and set aside the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad, ('the Tribunal' for short) in Reference (IT) No. 189 of 1987 dated 15.01.1990, the appellant-workman has filed the present Letters Patent Appeal. 2. The recorded facts reveal that; the appellant was employed by the Respondent-Uttar Gujarat Vij Company ('the respondent-Company' for short) as a Junior Clerk. A dispute was raised by him for granting the promotion as Senior Clerk (Accounts) w.e.f. 22.02.1974. The same was referred to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication to the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Ahmedabad. 3. The appellant had joined the service of the Respondent-Company as Junior Clerk on 08.01.1966. By an Office Order dated 22.02.1974, he was promoted as Senior Clerk. It is the case of the appellant-workman that as no relieving order was passed by the Respondent-Company, he did not join the duties. Again he was promoted by an Office Order dated 22.07.1974 but, he did not join at the transferred place. Thereafter, on the third occasion, he was again promoted to the same post vide order dated 22.04.1975 and was posted at Dabhoda Sub-Division. He did not join the duties due to some family circumstances. Vide Office Order dated 19.05.1976 he was again promoted as a Senior Clerk and posted at the same place i.e. Dabhoda Sub Division, which he had accepted. 4. The dispute which was raised before the Tribunal by the appellant was that he should be granted promotion as Senior Clerk w.e.f. 22.02.1974 with all consequential benefits. The Tribunal vide award and order dated 15.01.1990 allowed the reference by holding that the appellant-workman is deemed to have been promoted as Senior Clerk (Accounts) with retrospective effect from 22.02.1974 with all consequential benefits arising therefrom and the difference in wages shall also be paid within a period of three months. 5. Aggrieved by the Award, the Respondent-Company challenged the same by filing Special Civil Application No. 3382 of 1990 before this Court. As observed earlier, vide judgement dated 24.08.2004, the award passed by the Tribunal was set aside. 6. Learned advocate Ms. 5. Aggrieved by the Award, the Respondent-Company challenged the same by filing Special Civil Application No. 3382 of 1990 before this Court. As observed earlier, vide judgement dated 24.08.2004, the award passed by the Tribunal was set aside. 6. Learned advocate Ms. Vandana L. Bhatt for the appellant-workman has vehemently submitted that the learned Single Judge was not justified in interfering with the award passed by the Tribunal since the Tribunal, after extensive analysis of the documentary evidence, has rightly concluded that the appellant-workman is entitled to promotion with retrospective effect with consequential benefits. She has contended that the reliance placed by the Tribunal on Circular No. 152, in support of the appellant-workman, was justified as it lays down that in all orders of promotions the precise date of relieving and reporting for duty should be specifically mentioned. She has further contended that the learned Single Judge should have considered that as the promotion orders of the appellant-workman did not contain any relieving date as envisaged in the aforesaid Circular, the appellant-workman was precluded from joining at the transferred place, therefore, he is entitled to promotion with retrospective effect. 7. In her submissions, Ms. Bhatt has also placed reliance upon the case of one Shri N.G. Prajapati, whose name figured at Serial No. 20 in the common promotion order dated 22.02.1974, was granted promotion with effect from the said date subsequently. Taking aid from the award dated 15.01.1990, she has contended that the promotion order could not have been cancelled, if an employee does not report for duty at the new place of posting within the prescribed time, and separate order cancelling the same should have been passed. Learned advocate Ms. Bhatt for the appellant-workman has heavily placed reliance on the minutes recorded by the Committee, more particularly Item No. 58 concerning grant of promotion to the appellant-workman. She has stated that as per the minutes, the Committee has directed the concerned Deputy Superintendent (A/c.), S.E. Sabarmati, to take immediate steps to re-fix the seniority of the appellant, by granting promotion w.e.f. 22.02.1974. Thus, she has stated that the award dated 15.01.1990 did not require any interference by the learned Single Judge. 8. We have perused the award 15.01.1990 passed by the Tribunal and the judgement dated 24.08.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge. We have also carefully examined the documents on record. 9. Thus, she has stated that the award dated 15.01.1990 did not require any interference by the learned Single Judge. 8. We have perused the award 15.01.1990 passed by the Tribunal and the judgement dated 24.08.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge. We have also carefully examined the documents on record. 9. The undisputed facts in the present appeal are that initially vide order dated 22.02.1974, the appellant-workman was promoted as Senior Clerk but he did not join the duties and continued to work as Junior Clerk. Thereafter, again he was promoted and transferred from Sabarmati Circle to Dehgam by the order dated 22.07.1974 but he failed to join at the transferred place. The respondent authorities continued their efforts of promoting the appellant-workman, and, by the order dated 22.04.1975, he was again promoted to Senior Clerk and transferred to Dabhoda Sub Division but he continued his adamancy of denying promotion. Significantly, all these orders bear a specific date of joining the duties with a condition that in case the employees fail to join on such date, the respective orders shall be treated as cancelled. 10. We have also noticed the order dated 21.08.1974 whereby the name of the appellant-workman figures with other employees, by which their promotions are cancelled as they have expressed unwillingness to accept the same. The reasons stated in the said order gets fortified by the letter dated 07.06.1975 written by the appellant-workman to the respondent authorities wherein he has specifically mentioned that due to some family circumstances he is unable to leave Sabarmati and resume his duties at Dabhoda Sub-Division. In our considered opinion, the Tribunal has grossly erred in holding that the workman-appellant was entitled to promotion to the post of Senior Clerk w.e.f. 22.07.1974 in wake of the fact that he had refused the promotion conferred upon him vide order dated 22.04.1975. Once, the appellant-workman had denied subsequent promotion i.e. in 1975, he cannot be granted promotion with retrospective effect from 1974, that too with all consequential benefits. It is not the case of the appellant-workman that any person junior to him is promoted or he is wrongly denied promotion. Thus, the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction by passing an extralegal award. 11. In view of the said letter, by the Office Order dated 11.06.1975, the respondent authorities cancelled the order of the promotion dated 22.04.1975 qua the appellant-workman. Thus, the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction by passing an extralegal award. 11. In view of the said letter, by the Office Order dated 11.06.1975, the respondent authorities cancelled the order of the promotion dated 22.04.1975 qua the appellant-workman. Thus, the only conclusion that can be drawn from the promotion orders, as well as the letter dated 07.06.1975 written by the appellant, is that the appellant-workman was never willing to accept the promotion orders and join at the transferred place. The contention of the learned advocate for the appellant-workman that the promotion orders could not have been cancelled automatically since no relieving orders were passed is ill-founded as the orders stipulate such condition. The promotion orders make it clear that in case of non-joining or failing to join the duties on the dates mentioned therein will entail its cancellation. Thus, it was not incumbent upon the respondent authorities to pass a separate relieving order. The circular No. 152 dated 21.12.1968 specifically states that the orders of promotion shall contain a precise date of relieving and reporting for duty at the new station with a condition that the orders shall stand automatically cancelled if they are not complied with. It further stipulates that the instructions contained therein are required to be followed strictly by the Field Officers. 12. Reliance placed on the minutes of the Committee by the learned advocate for the appellant-workman is also misconceived since the same only refers of the seniority of the appellant-workman as Senior Assistant. It only refers to taking a decision by the Deputy Superintendent immediately qua the re-fixation of the seniority of the appellant. The same does not speak of grant of any deemed date of promotion with consequential benefits to the appellant. 13. In our considered opinion, the learned Single Judge in his judgement dated 24.08.2004 has extensively dealt with all the aspects of the matter and has rightly quashed and set aside the award dated 15.01.1990 passed by the Tribunal in Reference (IT) No. 189 of 1987. We do not find any reason to interfere with the same. 14. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fails and deserves to be dismissed, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal Dismissed.