Hon’ble Prakash Krishna, J.—The present writ petition has been filed against the award of the Industrial Tribunal passed in adjudication case No. 10 of 1989 dated 5.9.1991 whereby the relief has been granted to Gudar, Panna Lal and Ram Ugrah by designating them as (1) Fitter, category skilled, (2) Pattern-maker, category skilled and (3) Shaperman, category skilled respectively. In respect of other labourers, their claim for fitment was rejected. Facts of the case may be noticed in brief.

2. The petitioner claims that it is a factory registered under the Factories Act and it is engaged in the manufacture of chaff cutters. Manufacturing process of chaff cutters has been described in paragraphs-4 and 5 of the writ petition. The petitioner claims that it is a very small Undertaking and is paying wages to their employees as per rates revised for Engineering Units employing below 50 employees under the Minimum Wages Act. A dispute under Section 4-K of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act was referred to the Industrial Tribunal to the following effect:-

“Kya Sewayojko Dwara Parishisth Main Ullikhit Apne 31 Shramiko Ko Unke Naam Ke Samaksha Darshai Gai Shreni Ke Anusar Vibhajit Karte Huain Padnam Evam Vetan Diya Jana Chahiye ? Yadi Haan To Kin Anya Vivran Sahit?”

3. The Industrial Tribunal considered the case of each and every workman separately and reached to the conclusion that only three persons namely Gudar, Panna Lal and Ram Ugrah are entitled for the desired relief.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the writ petition submits that the order of the Tribunal is bad as the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal is limited and it cannot grant promotion to the workers. The matter of grant of promotion is managerial function. Sri Bhoopendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for the contesting respondent No. 2, on the other hand, submits that as a matter of fact, the present case is not a case of grant of promotion, but it is a case of fitment of wages.

5. Considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. There appears to be no dispute between the parties with regard to limited jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal. The only point which falls for consideration is whether it is a case of grant of promotion to the workmen or it is a case of grant of fitment. Learned counsel for the petitioner is correct so far legal position is concerned that grant of promotion is a managerial function, there being no quarrel to the said proposition, but its applicability to the facts of the given case is a different aspect.

7. Coming to the facts of the present case, it may be noted that the Tribunal has considered evidence led by the parties with respect to the nature of employment and the work performed by each workman individually. The factory employs two full time Supervisors who constantly supervise the work. It is a small Engineering unit wherein chaff cutters are manufactured and moulding takes place only two or three times in a month. The Industrial Tribunal has found that Gudar is working as Fitter, Turner and Tapman. His main work is fitting of various parts which come out of the mould and then fitting of the whole machine. It may be noted that no attempt was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to challenge the aforesaid findings of the Tribunal. The said findings are essentially findings of fact. On these findings, the Tribunal has rightly held that Gudar is entitled for wages as admissible to Fitter category, skilled labourer, there being no contrary material. The Tribunal has also found that Panna Lal repairs pattern and this is done by filling gaps in broken parts with ‘Masala’. It has found that pattern making and repairing work are special type of work which no body else can do and as such, Panna Lal is entitled for wages as admissible to a skilled labourer. Similarly, it has been found that Ram Ugrah is also a Shaperman doing work of special type which no body e