JUDGMENT : Devashis Baruah, J. Heard Mr. S. R. A. Naser, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. J. Roy, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. B. P. Sarmah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 3 to 6. I have also heard Mr. K. Gogoi, the learned CGC appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and Mr. S. R. Baruah, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.2. 2. The Petitioner herein has challenged the award dated 30.05.2016 passed in Reference Case No.8/2009 whereby the learned Labour Court, Assam had decided the reference against the Petitioner. 3. It is seen from the materials on record that the Government of Assam, Labour and Employment Department vide a notification No.GLR.130/99/52 dated 13.07.2009 had referred the dispute to the learned Labour Court, Assam for adjudication. The said questions which were referred are reproduced herein under: “1. Whether the management of CCI Ltd. Bokajan/New Delhi-3 is/are justified to deprive the member of the Bokajan Cement Corporation Employees Union (BCCEU) from their legitimate promotion in time as per the rule in spite of their seniority status as compared to promoted workmen/employees who were given promotion vide order no.BKJ/Pers/4(9)/2008 dated 11.3.2008? 2. Whether the management of CCI Ltd., Bokajan/New Delhi-3 is/are justified by not giving the promotion in time as per the rule or not issued notice Under Section 9(a) of the I.D. Act, to these employees/workmen who were either dead or retired from service without getting promotion for long 15/20 years in service? 3. If the CCI management is/are not justified, then all the eligible (as per the rule) employees/workmen should be promoted with retrospective effect and restore their seniority status in the upgraded list with all back benefit? 4. If the CCI management is/are not justified in charging the promotional rule/Guideline without serving the notice under section 9(a) of the Industrial Dispute Act, then retired employees/workmen and deceased family members should be given the financial benefits or any other benefits Court may deemed fit and proper?” 4. The record reveals that on behalf of the Petitioner as well as the Respondent Nos. 3 to 6, written statements were filed. On behalf of the Respondent Nos. 3 to 6, evidence was issued but the Petitioner side did not adduce any evidence. The record reveals that on behalf of the Petitioner as well as the Respondent Nos. 3 to 6, written statements were filed. On behalf of the Respondent Nos. 3 to 6, evidence was issued but the Petitioner side did not adduce any evidence. The learned Labour Court, Assam vide the impugned award dated 30.05.2016 decided the questions so referred against the Petitioner and it is under such circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the learned Labour Court, Assam decided the said proceedings not in the proper manner as envisaged under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and without further taking into account that the members of the Petitioner Union were being deprived of various service benefits which includes the way structure, promotion earned leave, North East allowance, house building allowance etc. whereas other groups were given such benefits. 6. Mr. J. Roy, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 submitted that the Respondent No.3 is a Government of India undertaking. For the purpose of granting promotion, it holds DPC and those employees who have qualified in those DPCs have been granted promotion. The learned Senior counsel further submitted that in the year 1991, 1992 and 1993, all employees/workmen working under the Respondent No.3 who were eligible were asked to appear in the DPC and in pursuance to those DPCs, those persons who qualified were granted promotion. The learned Senior counsel submitted that these aspects were brought on record by the Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 in their written statement as well as by adducing evidence however it would be seen that the workmen union did not cross-examined the witness on merits. Additionally, the workmen union also did not adduce any evidence as to what were the deprivations which had led to the dispute. 7. This Court upon hearing the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and also upon perusal of the impugned award dated 30.05.2016 is of the opinion that as the Petitioner herein have failed to show as to who are the members of its union who have been deprived and what is the deprivation which has been alleged before the learned Labour Court, Assam. Under such circumstances, this Court finds no good ground for exercising its jurisdiction for issuance of writ in nature of certiorari in the facts of the instant case. 8. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the instant writ petition for which the instant writ petition stands dismissed. 9. However, in the facts of the instant case, this Court is not inclined to impose any costs.