The Labour Court has the jurisdiction to grant designation and pay of the post on which the workman has been working for several years, but cannot grant promotion.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the award of the Labour Court. Gorakhpur dated October 5. 1993 in Adjudication Case No. 124 of 1988. Annexure 9 to the Writ petition. At the initial stage when the petition was filed the standing counsel had accepted notice for respondent No. 1 and Sri Shyam Narain had accepted notice for respondent No. 3. Counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged between the parlies. The Writ petition is being decided finally at the admission stage with the consent of the parties.

( 2 ) THE petitioner. U. P. State Electricity Board, filed this Writ petition with the allegations that the respondent No. 3 was appointed on the post of Beldar on April 16, 1974 by the Board at gorakhpur. There is no post of condencer attendant at Gorakhpur nor he was ever appointed as condencer attendant. The respondent No. 3 raised an industrial dispute under Section 4-A of the u. P. Industrial Disputes Act. A reference was made by the state for adjudication to the Labour court, Gorakhpur as under: 1. Whether the employers are liable to make respondent Sri Chandra Shekhar Tewari permanent on the post of condenser attendant if so, from which date ? 2. Whether the employers are under legal obligation to give payment of salary to the respondent no. 3 and designation for the post of Lineman on which he has been working. If so, from which date with details ?

( 3 ) IT has been stated that in the earlier Adjudication case No. 101 of 1983 an award was given by the Labour Court on August 18, 1986 and the respondent No. 3 was not given the post and salary of condenser attendant, only the Award giving the arrears of salary for the post of condenser attendant from April 15, 1974 till 1979, the date when the respondent No. 3 was transferred to the Power House Mohaddipur, was given along with Rs. 100/- as costs. On the other dispute raised by the respondent No. 3 in which the question raised as to whether the employer was justified in not regularising the respondent No. 3 on the post of Lineman if yes, then from which date he should be regularised, an award was given which is the subject matter in the present writ petition. The petitioner submitted that in order to encash the previous award dated August 18, 1986 whereby only an order was given for payment of salary for certain period and the workman was not given the post of condenser attendant, the respondent No. 3 moved an application before the Labour Court that since he was working on the post of condenser attendant, he should be regularised. The statement of the respondent No. 3 was recorded before the Labour Court. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent No. 3 is not entitled to get salary of the lineman.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ranjit Saxena, submitted that under Section 79 of the State Electricity Act, 1948 the Board has power to frame regulations and such regulations supersede any law for the time being in force. It was submitted that according to the regulations framed by the Board the qualification and venue of promotion as specified do not permit the respondent No. 3 to any promotion on the post of Lineman nor he is entitled for such designation or salary thereof. It was submitted that the duties of Beldar, as specifically given in the regulation, are to assist the Lineman. His work is merely to assist the Lineman and he never becomes entitled for promotion to the post of Lineman as the Beldar lacks the essential requisite qualification. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed before the Court Annexures CA-1 and CA-2 filed with the counter-affidavit of respondent No. 3 which are the rules for promotion for the staff of the Board. He submitted that these rules do not confer any legal right on the respondent No. 3 for the designation and emoluments of the Lineman. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed a copy of the statement of the respondent No. 3 and stremeously submitted th