ORDER : 1. Aggrieved by the order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench, dismissing the writ petition and confirming the award passed by the Industrial Court in an appeal arising out of the award of the Labour Court, the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, now the Madhya Pradesh Vidyut Vitran Company Limited, has come up with the above appeal. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 to 4 have been served with notices, but no one has entered appearance on their behalf. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 to 4 were pitted against each other in a seniority dispute, the details of which may be summarised in the following paragraphs. 3. Respondent no.1 herein filed a petition before the Labour Court, Gwalior under Section 31(3)(6) read with Section 62 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (for short ‘the Act’). His grievance, in short, was that he was assigned seniority below respondent nos. 2 to 4 wrongfully in the position of OA, Grade III and that this wrongful fixation of seniority has adversely affected his chances of promotion to the next higher grade. 4. By an order dated 16.10.2000, the Labour Court rejected the claim of respondent no.1. Therefore, respondent no.1 filed an appeal before the Industrial Court under Section 65 of the Act. The Industrial Court allowed the appeal directing the appellant herein to place respondent no.1 as senior to respondent nos. 2 to 4 herein in the seniority list and also to give him promotion to OA, Grade II, from the time his juniors got promoted. 5. The reversing order of the Industrial Court was challenged by the appellant-management by way of a writ petition before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the writ petition primarily on the ground that as an employer, the appellant cannot be said to be aggrieved in a dispute inter se between two groups of employees for fixation of seniority. 6. In a way the High Court was right in holding that in an inter se dispute over seniority between two groups of employees, the employer cannot keep on agitating the matter. But, in this case, it was not just the settlement of dispute relating to inter se seniority between the respondent no.1 and respondent nos. 2 to 4. 6. In a way the High Court was right in holding that in an inter se dispute over seniority between two groups of employees, the employer cannot keep on agitating the matter. But, in this case, it was not just the settlement of dispute relating to inter se seniority between the respondent no.1 and respondent nos. 2 to 4. The consequential grief of grant of promotion w.e.f. the date on which his junior got promoted has also been granted by the Industrial Court, which would have financial implications on the appellant. Therefore, it is necessary to look into the crux of the issue. 7. Admittedly, respondent no. 1 and respondent nos. 2 to 4 were originally appointed in the year 1981 through the same process of selection. In the process of selection, the candidates who were selected were arranged in the order of merit. It is not in dispute that respondent no.1 secured 89 marks. Respondent nos. 2 to 4 secured higher marks in the process of selection, than respondent no.1. 8. But unfortunately, the respondent no.1 joined duty a couple of days before the respondent nos. 2 to 4. To be precise, respondent no.1 joined duty on 27.07.1981. Respondent nos.2 to 4 joined duty respectively on 03.08.1981, 17.08.1981 and 21.08.1981. 9. The Industrial Court as the Appellate Court thought that the issue of seniority should be determined on the basis of the date of joining duty and not on the basis of the ranking assigned in the process of selection. Same view was also upheld by the High Court solely on the ground that no seniority list was published. 10. But, if no seniority list has been published, then automatically one should go only by the ranking assigned in the process of selection. When it is the admitted case that respondent nos. 2 to 4 secured higher marks than respondent no.1 in the process of selection and all of them joined duty within a few days gap, there is no way that the ranking assigned could have been overturned on the basis of certain fortuitous circumstances, such as the dates of joining duty. Therefore, the view taken by the Industrial Court and the High Court are wrong. 11. Hence, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order of the High Court confirming the order of the Industrial Court is set aside. The order of the Labour Court stands restored. Therefore, the view taken by the Industrial Court and the High Court are wrong. 11. Hence, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order of the High Court confirming the order of the Industrial Court is set aside. The order of the Labour Court stands restored. 12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.