JUDGMENT Mohinder Pal, J. This petition is directed against the judgment and award dated 11.05.2005, delivered by the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot in Reference I.T.No.214 of 1998, whereby the learned Tribunal has directed the original petitioner (Respondent herein) to be given all the benefits of the establishment Circular No.446 dated 14.02.1985 of the erstwhile Gujarat State Electricity Board (Board for short). 2. Respondent joined services of erstwhile GEB as Nominal Master Roll herein after referred to as 'NMR') on 06.11.1981 and continued to work till 1995. In pursuance to a settlement dated 14.02.1985 arrived at, by the Board with GEB Union, it was resolved that all NMR employees working in the Board, who, on 01.04.1983, have completed 240 days of continuous service in each of the preceding four years on 01.04.1983, or would complete such continuous service as on date subsequent to 01.04.1983, shall be deemed to be in permanent and regular service in the prescribed time scale, according to the nature of work. As the petitioner had completed 960 days and fulfilled the above condition, he was absorbed and regularized as Helper on 21.08.1995. 3. It was grievance of the petitioner that before regularization in the year 1985, he has worked as Pay Calculator and as such, he should have been given the pay scale of Junior Assistant rather than that of Helper. Accordingly, Respondent-workman raised Industrial Dispute seeking pay for the post of Junior Assistant and consequential benefits from the date of reference i.e. 23.11.1998 till realization with running interest at the rate of 6% per annum within three months. 4. Original Respondent i.e. GEB contested claim of the petitioner before the Tribunal. Both parties have led oral as well as documentary evidences. Learned Tribunal, Rajkot, after hearing both the parties, partly allowed the claim of the respondent vide its judgment and order dated 11.05.2005. Aggrieved with the judgment and award passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, petitioner GEB has preferred this petition before this Court. 5. Respondent-Workman has contested this petition by filing reply stating therein that he was appointed as Helper with effect from 29.08.1985 on 6 months probation period which was totally unjust and unfair as he has worked as temporary Pay Calculator from 06.11.1981. 5. Respondent-Workman has contested this petition by filing reply stating therein that he was appointed as Helper with effect from 29.08.1985 on 6 months probation period which was totally unjust and unfair as he has worked as temporary Pay Calculator from 06.11.1981. As per Circular No.446, he has completed 961 days in the year 1985 and therefore, he was entitled for permanency from 1985 as Junior Assistant but he was made permanent from 21.08.1995. The respondent-workman was eligible for promotion with effect from 1985 as junior assistant, as his juniors have been promoted to this post. However, the same benefit has been denied to him. 6. Learned Tribunal took into consideration the aforementioned discrimination and reached to conclusion that, he was entitled to be considered as Junior Assistant from 1985 in view of the Circular No.446 adopted by the Board. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Board has argued that in pursuance to the Circular No.446 of the Board, NMR Employees of the Board, who were in continuous service of 4 years as on 01.04.1983 or would complete such continuous service of the 4 years on a date subsequent to 1.4.1983 and had put in aggregate continuous service of 960 days with the Board, were required to be taken on regular establishment. As the respondent has completed 960 days in the year 1995, he was taken on regular establishment as Helper vide order dated 21st August, 1995. It has been argued that the respondent has never worked as Junior Assistant prior to the date of joining as Helper. He has referred to copies of exhibit documents according to which, respondent has worked as Helper in the preceding 4 years from the date of regularization. It has been argued that in absence of any evidence in favour of the workman, the Tribunal has wrongly concluded that the workman has worked as Pay Calculator for sometime in the year 1985 and hence, he was entitled to be regularized as Junior Assistant rather than that of the Helper by the Board. 8. The arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner are controverted by learned counsel for the respondent on the ground that the workman has put in sufficient services as Pay Calculator. This service was not taken into consideration while appointing respondent-workman as Helper. 8. The arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner are controverted by learned counsel for the respondent on the ground that the workman has put in sufficient services as Pay Calculator. This service was not taken into consideration while appointing respondent-workman as Helper. Juniors to the respondent have been given higher pay scale and are also given pay scale of Junior Assistant which has been denied to the respondent. This Court being Court of Appeal was not required to reappreciate the evidence considered by the Tribunal and in absence of record regarding muster roll, having been produced by the petitioner-Board, adverse inference was required to be drawn against them and accordingly, decision of the Industrial Tribunal directing the Board to grant the pay scale of Junior Assistant to the respondent-workman was within four-corners of law. In support of these arguments, he has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court passed in the case of Syed Yakoob V/s. K.S.Radhakrishnan and Others, (1964) AIR SC 477 and another decision i.e. Director, Fisheries Terminal Department V/s. Bhikubhai M.Chavda, (2010) 1 SCC 47 . 9. This Court has considered the submissions made by both the sides. The Circular of the Board on the basis of which the petitioner has been absorbed permanently is required to be reproduced as under: "In pursuance of the settlement dated 14.02.1985 arrived at by the Board with the G.E.B. Union in connection with NMR employees of the Board, the following orders are issued. (1) All nominal muster roll employees working in the Board who have completed as on 01.04.1983, 240 days of continuous service in each of four or more years preceding 01.04.1983 or would complete such continuous service on a date subsequent to 01.04.1983 shall be deemed to be permanent on regular establishment in the prescribed time scale according to the nature of work being done by the employees concerned w.e.f. 01.04.1983 or the subsequent date as the case may be. This is, as NMR employees working as welder, and satisfying the condition for regular employment as above would be appointed in the same capacity in a regular posts". 10. Close perusal of this circular will show that the employee seeking permanency were required to be regularized according to the nature of work being done by them in the preceding 4 years from the date of regularization. 10. Close perusal of this circular will show that the employee seeking permanency were required to be regularized according to the nature of work being done by them in the preceding 4 years from the date of regularization. Respondent-workman has worked as Helper on the establishment immediately preceding 4 years from the date of his regular absorption. It will be relevant to note here that Helper is the first step of entry into service of the Board while Junior Assistant is the third step in the hierarchy. 11. Respondent-Workman has claimed the third step of Junior Assistant on the ground that sometime in the year 1981, he has worked as temporary Pay Calculator. It will be further relevant to note that no documentary evidences whatsoever have been placed on record by the workman to substantiate his claim. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the Board has produced certified copies of exhibits produced before the Tribunal according to which, Respondent was working as Helper in the preceding 4 years before the date of regular absorption. The order on the basis of which he has been given appointment is also annexed with this petition. Perusal of the same further shows that he along with a number of other NMRs were given regular appointment in the year 1995. 12. It could be seen that in his petition before the Industrial Tribunal, respondent has claimed seniority as Junior Assistant from the year 1985. In absence of any evidence in this regard, the Tribunal was not within its jurisdiction to have granted this relief. This is particularly so, when the relief is claimed for the first time in the year 1998 i.e. after a gap of about 13 years. The workman has not raised any dispute on 21.08.1995 i.e. the date of joining as Helper and has continued to draw the salary of Helper till 1998. However, the dispute has been raised for the first time in the year 1998 which could not have been permitted by the Tribunal. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the decision of Apex Court in the case of Syed Yakoob V/s. K.S.Radhakrishnan and Others. As per this decision, an error of fact cannot be corrected by the Court in a writ petition. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the decision of Apex Court in the case of Syed Yakoob V/s. K.S.Radhakrishnan and Others. As per this decision, an error of fact cannot be corrected by the Court in a writ petition. However, in the same judgment, it is further made clear that if findings of fact are based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. Coming to the present case, in absence of any evidence produced in favour of the workman deciding in his favour will amount to an error of law, which can be corrected by this Court. 14. Learned counsel for the respondent has also relied upon another decision Director, Fisheries Terminal Department V/s. Bhikubhai M.Chavda. This Court has gone through the judgment in this case. However, the same is not at all applicable to the facts of present case. The above cited judgment is relating to a case of termination from service. However, petitioner is seeking promotion and higher pay scale in the case in hand. 15. In view of the afore-going discussion, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Industrial Tribunal is quashed and set aside. This petition is allowed by dismissing the claim preferred by the original claimant. Rule is made absolute accordingly.