( 1 ) RULE. The writ petition is taken up for final hearing.

( 2 ) THE writ petition challenges the award dated J 2th September, 2001. The only issue which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication, reads as under: "whether Shri /asha Ram entitled to be promoted as Assistant Director and if so from what date and what directions are necessary in this respect?"

( 3 ) THE Tribunal framed the following issues:

"1. Whether the cause of the workman has been legally espoused by the union? - (OPW) 2. Whether Shri Asha Ram is a workman within the definition of section 2 (s) of I. D. Act? - (OPD) 3. Whether Shri Asha Ram fulfills the qualifications as required in recruitment rules for the post of Asstt. Director of Horticulture?- (OPW) 4. As per the terms of reference. "

( 4 ) SINCE no evidence was produced by the petitioner MCD in support of its stand in spite of repeated opportunities on 7. 5. 2001 the petitioner s evidence was closed. By its unrebutted evidence led on 22. 11. 1993, the respondent had established that he had passed High School and secured a 2 years diploma in horticulture. On the first issue no document was produced nor any suggestion given to the petitioner on behalf of the management hence this issue was decided in favour of the respondent. In respect of the issue No. 2, it has been held that it was not the case of the management that the respondent was employed in a supervisory capacity and accordingly this issue was also decided against the management. In respect of issue No. 3, the workman averred that he has passed his High School and completed two years diploma in Horticulture. No rules and regulations were shown by the petitioner to the contrary to demonstrate that the workman was not entitled to the post of assistant Director of Horticulture for the lack of requisite qualification nor was any evidence to that effect led by the petitioner. Accordingly, this issue was also decided rightly in favour of the workman by the Industrial Tribunal and he was found to have the requisite qualifications for the post of Asstt. Director of horticulture as nothing was extracted from him during his cross-examination or otherwise that the workman was not entitled to the post of Assistant Director of Horticulture.

( 5 ) ONCE the Tribunal found that no recruitment rules were placed on record by the petitioner before the Tribunal to substantiate its plea that the respondent was not qualified to hold the post of Assistant Director, Horticulture, the substratum of the case set up by the petitioner disappeared and accordingly the findings recorded by the Tribunal become immune from challenge. Furthermore, the impact of the award is limited due to the respondent No. 1 s death on 9. 7. 94 only to monetary claims payable to his widow, from the date of juniors of the respondent No. 1 were promoted, till the date of respondent no. 1 s death.

( 6 ) THE position of law in respect of interference by Writ Court under article 226 of the Constitvition is well settled in view of the following: (a) The Supreme Court in para 5 in Sadhu Ram v. Delhi Transport corporation, AIR 1984 SC 1967 observed-

". . . . . NOR we think that it was right for the High Court to interfere with the Award of the Labour Court under Article 226 on a mere technically. Article 226 is a device to secure and advance justice and not otherwise. In the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore the Award of the Presiding officer. " (b) The Supreme Court in Harbans Lal v. Jag Mohan, (1985) 4 SCC 333 in Para 5 held as under-

". . . . . . . THE limitations on the jurisdiction of the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution are well settled. The Writ Petition before he High Court prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari, and it is well known that a writ in the nature of certiorari may be issued only if the order of the inferior tribunal of subordinate Court suffers from an error of jurisdiction, or from