JUDGMENT : M. Sathyanarayanan, J. (Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order of this Court made in W.P.(MD) No.3422 of 2017 dated 17.09.2019. 1. The writ petitioner is the appellant and aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, which was filed for the relief of Mandamus directing the official respondents to re-designate him as Junior Assistant from the date of initial engagement as Data Entry Operator from 23.04.1991 and give him time bound notional promotion in the Administrative Category from that date, so also the pay protection from that date with attendant monetary benefits and consequential relief’s in the light of the award dated 24.02.2016 passed in I.D.No.236 of 2016, on the file of the second respondent/Labour Court. 2. The facts leading to the filing of this Writ Appeal have been narrated in detail in the impugned order dated 17.09.2019, passed in W.P. (MD).No.3422 of 2017 and therefore, it is unnecessary to restate the facts once again except to cull out certain relevant facts. 3. The State Express Transport Corporation Ooliar Sangam, Chennai - 600 002, raised an I.D.No.236 of 2016, on the file second respondent/Labour Court against the Management of State Express Transport Corporation, Chennai - 600 002 and the Government of Tamil Nadu vide G.O.(D) No.426, Labour and Employment Department dated 06.02.2006, has referred the dispute with the following points for adjudication: "Demand No.1: Whether the demand of the petitioner that the management shall give up the change proposed in the notice issued under Section 9A of the Industrial Dispute Act dated 05.07.2005 and that the management shall continue to employ the 54 workmen concerned in this dispute as Date Entry Operators is justified. If so, to what reliefs are they entitled? Demand No.2: Whether the demand of the union that the Date Entry Operators should be placed in appropriate pay scale from the date of their intial appointment as Date Entry Operators and that the pay shall be revised subsequently is justified. If so, to what reliefs are they entitled?" 4. The second respondent/Labour Court has passed an award dated 24.02.2016 and thereby, adjudicated the said reference and it is relevant to extract hereunder paragraph No.8: "8. If so, to what reliefs are they entitled?" 4. The second respondent/Labour Court has passed an award dated 24.02.2016 and thereby, adjudicated the said reference and it is relevant to extract hereunder paragraph No.8: "8. In the result this industrial dispute is adjudicated on the following terms: The demand of the petitioner that the management shall give up the change proposed in the notice issued under Section 9A of the Industrial Dispute Act, dated 05.07.2005 and that the management shall continue to employ the 54 workmen concerned in this dispute as Date Entry Operators is justified. The management shall continue to allow them to work as Date Entry Operators till their retirement. The demand of the union that the Date Entry Operators should be placed in appropriate pay scale from the date of their initial appointment as Data Entry Operators and that the pay shall be revised subsequently is justified. The Data Entry Operators should be placed on the same pay scale as the Junior Assistants at the time of their original appointment as the Data Entry Operators and they should be given notional promotion on the date on which the Junior Assistant appointed immediately before the workmen involved in this dispute were appointed as Date Entry Operators got promoted to assistant. After such notional promotion they should be called Data Entry Operators Grade-I. They after such notional promotion should be placed on the same pay scale as that of Assistants till their retirement. The respondent shall pay the wages and all other attendant benefits according to their new pay scale." 5. The petitioner prior to the filing of the writ petition has submitted a representation dated 26.12.2016, praying for re-designation of his post from Data Entry Operator to System Operator and thereafter, filed the present writ petition. The learned Judge, on an elaborate consideration of the factual aspects and also referring to Clause-18 of Section 12(3) settlement dated 28.09.1989, found that the writ petition lacks merit and accordingly, dismissed the same. 6. The learned Judge, on an elaborate consideration of the factual aspects and also referring to Clause-18 of Section 12(3) settlement dated 28.09.1989, found that the writ petition lacks merit and accordingly, dismissed the same. 6. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that in the light of the above cited award passed by the second respondent/Labour Court, it can be presumed that the Data Entry Operators are performing the same work as that of the Junior Assistants and in the light of the same, a positive direction may be issued to the first respondent/Corporation to redesignate him as a Junior Assistant. 7. In the considered opinion of the Court, the said sole point urged by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner thoroughly lacks merit and substance for the following reasons: (i) The appellant placed a heavy reliance upon the above cited award dated 24.02.2016 made in I.D.No.236 of 2006, passed by the second respondent/Labour Court and even as per the award, what was granted is only the pay protection, that is, same scale for the same work extracted and the award in no way speaks about re-designation of Data Entry Operators as Junior Assistants. (ii) It is also to be noted at this juncture that in respect of the above cited award, it was made applicable only to 54 persons mentioned therein and admittedly, the appellant/writ petitioner was not one of the 54 workmen. (iii) Subsequently, Section 12(3) of the Industrial Dispute Act settlement came into being on 28.09.1989 covering the appellant/writ petitioner also and as per Clause 18 of the said settlement, a person cannot be transferred from one category to another category and it is relevant to extract hereunder the vernacular version of the representation dated 26.12.2016: “TAMIL” 8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the settlement would definitely bind the appellant/writ petitioner also and even for the sake of arguments that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the said award, admittedly, he was not one of the workmen in the industrial dispute and as such, it has no application to the case on hand and in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Single Judge after thorough consideration and appreciation of the materials placed, has rightly reached a conclusion to dismiss the writ petition. 9. 9. This Court, on an independent application of mind, is of the considered view that there is no error apparent or infirmity in the reasons assigned in the order dismissing the writ petition and finds no merit in the Writ Appeal. 10. In the result, the Writ Appeal is dismissed, confirming the order dated 17.09.2019 passed in W.P.(MD) No.3422 of 2017. No costs.