Hon’ble Shishir Kumar, J.—By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has approached this Court for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the award dated 19.4.2006 passed by Presiding Officer-I, U.P. Kanpur in Adjudication Case No. 151 of 2002 which was published on 24.6.2006, Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

2. The petitioner U.P. State Handloom Corporation being employer has approached this Court for setting aside the aforesaid award by which the Labour Court has directed the petitioner that respondent-workman be treated on the post of Senior Salesman from 1.4.1981 and from 1.1.1986 be treated as Depot Manager Grade-II and accordingly the salary be paid to the respondent-workman. The respondent-workman who was an employee of the petitioner, as he was denied promotion on the post of Senior Salesman and subsequently on the post of Depot Manager Grade-II, raised a dispute before the labour Court on the basis of the reference by the State Government. For the ready reference, the reference to the labour Court is being quoted below :

“KYA SEVAYOJKON DWARA APANE KARMCHARI SUSHIL KUMAR PUTRA SRI HARI, D. MASAND PAD SENIER SELSMAN, KENDRIYA VASTRAGAR KO DI. 1.4.81 SE SENIER SELSMAN PAD PAR VA DINANK 1.1.86 SE DIPO MANAGER GRADE-II PAD PAR PRONNAT KI JANI CHAHIYE? YADI HAN, TO KIS TITHI SE, TATHA KIS ANYA VIVARAN SAHIT?”

3. The labour Court on the basis of relevant record and on the basis of written statement filed on behalf of petitioner has considered the claim and has come to the conclusion that respondent-workman is entitled to be given promotion and further promotion in accordance with the reference.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri S.N. Singh Yadav has submitted before this Court that the labour Court has got no jurisdiction to direct the authority to treat a person at a particular post. The labour Court has only power to direct the authority concerned to consider the claim of the respondent-workman. It has further been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that according to U.P. State Handloom Corporation Limited (Officers and Staffs) Service Rules, 1981 which provides the provisions for promotion, sub-clauses (1) and (2) of Rule 23 of the aforesaid rules mention that all promotions form lower posts or grades to the higher posts or grades shall be mainly performance oriented. Promotion to the post of Group ‘A’ and Group ‘B’ against the vacancies reserved to be filled up by the promotion from amongst the serving employees, shall be strictly on merit. In taking support of the aforesaid provisions, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that it is on the basis of merit to be considered for promotion, therefore, the labour Court was not justified in directing the petitioner to treat the respondent-workman on a particular post. If the labour Court was satisfied, he should have directed the petitioner to consider the claim of the respondent-workman. In support of the aforesaid contention, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of K. Samantaray v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2004) 9 SCC 286 and has placed reliance upon paragraph-6 of the judgment which is quoted below :

“In all services, whether public or private there is invariably a hierarchy of posts comprising of higher posts and lower posts. Promotion, as understood under the service law jurisprudence, is advancement in rank, grade or both and no employee has a right to be promoted, but has a right to be considered for promotion. The following observations in Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan are significant :

“The question of a proper promotion policy depends on various conflicting factors. It is obvious that the only method in which absolute objectivity can be ensured is for all promotions to be made entirely on grounds of seniority. That means that if a post falls vacant it is filled by the person who has served longest in the post immediately below. But the trouble with