JUDGMENT : APARESH KUMAR SINGH, J. 1. Heard counsel for the petitioner. Respondent, though has appeared through his counsel, but no counter affidavit has been filed on his behalf. No one appears today either to represent him. 2. The workman Shri Ramagya Gour, a General Mazdoor, even as per term of reference, raised a claim for regularisation of his services on the post of Fitter. This was referred to the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal-1, Dhanbad vide order dated 20th November 1997 by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India and instituted as Reference No.193 of 1997. The workman through his written statement pleaded that he is a permanent workman working in Block-II Area of M/s BCCL who has been continuously and satisfactorily working as Fitter since 1988 which is revealed from perusal of the high recommendation of the concerned authority of Block-II Area Open Cast Project. He has been engaged in maintenance and repair works of Dozers, Dumpers and other heavy vehicles and documents served by the management were testimonies to that. However, he is being treated as General Mazdoor. He also referred to a letter dated 23rd January 1996 of the Management which discloses warning upon him for lapses on his part in course of his engagement as a Fitter. On failure of conciliation, the reference was raised. He accordingly prayed that an award be passed in his favour to regularise him as Fitter since 1988. 3. Contention of the management, as evident from their written statement and the submissions of the counsel representing them, is to the effect that the concerned workman was holding the substantive post of General Mazdoor in Category-I as per the cadre scheme. Under the ladder of promotion, a General Mazdoor is to be promoted as Helper in Category-II and Senior Helper in Category-III and then only can be promoted in Category-IV. A General Mazdoor in Category-I cannot be promoted as Fitter in Category-IV superseding the workmen senior to him in the lower cadres. There is no provision for regularisation under the cadre directly from General Mazdoor Category-1 to the post of Fitter in Category- IV. The management had not issued any circular or rule permitting the local management to put any person according to their own choice on the post of Fitter from the post of General Mazdoor Category-I. 4. There is no provision for regularisation under the cadre directly from General Mazdoor Category-1 to the post of Fitter in Category- IV. The management had not issued any circular or rule permitting the local management to put any person according to their own choice on the post of Fitter from the post of General Mazdoor Category-I. 4. The concerned workman produced himself as Workman Witness No.1 and proved documents as Exts.W-1 to W-4. 5. The management examined one witness being M.W.1 Mr. N.L. Pandey posted as Senior Personnel Officer at Block-II Open Cast Project of M/s. BCCL. The management witness also in his deposition supported the stand taken in the written statement. 6. Learned Tribunal considered the documents Ext.W-1/1, a certificate issued by Engineer dated 30.10.1990 regarding repairing of Dozer, Ext.W-1/2 showing authorisation of the workman as Fitter from 28th March 1991, Ext.W-2/1 a representation of the workman dated 12th April 1991 for designating him as Fitter and Ext.W-2 again a representation dated 14th May 1991 to arrive at a conclusion that the management had been taking work of Fitter from the workman. Therefore, they could not deny him regularisation on the post of Fitter. The action of the management was accordingly held to be unjustified. 7. Learned counsel for the management has referred to the cadre scheme at Annexure-1 whereunder the basic post is that of Helper under E & M (Electrical & Mechanical) cadre in Category-II which prescribes certain qualifications and experiences to be completed. According to him, the workman had not even entered into the E & M cadre from the post of category-I General Mazdoor. The post of Mechanical Fitter is second in ladder in Electrical and Mechanical cadre in category-IV, which also prescribes certain qualification and passing of the Trade Test as well as recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee. 8. It, therefore, appears from the consideration of the entire materials on record and on perusal of the impugned award that merely on account of authorisation of the workman at the local level to discharge the work of repair of Dozer, Dumper and other heavy vehicles as a Fitter, without any recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee, the claim of the workman has been accepted by the learned Tribunal. Under the services of the management, where a particular cadre scheme is prescribed for promotion to the higher post, no claim for regularisation from a post of General Mazdoor Category-I to Category-IV straightway can be legally sustained without the incumbent having undergone the hierarchy of promotion from Category-II to Category-III and also consideration with other eligible persons by the Departmental Promotion Committee for being promoted as such to Category- IV post of Fitter. If such an approach is approved, it would lead to breaking down the cadre scheme and structure under the management of the respondent-BCCL which is an instrumentality of State and bound to observe the principles laid down under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in matters of appointment and promotion. Therefore, the finding of the learned Tribunal and the award impugned does not appear to be in consonance with the legal principles and standing order/cadre scheme/structure applicable to the services under the petitioner management. The impugned award, therefore, suffers from errors of law and facts both and the findings given cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The award dated 17th August 2009 passed in Reference No.193 of 1997 by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad (Annexure-5) is quashed. 9. Writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. I.A. No. 4232 of 2010 stands closed.