- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) It appears that after considering the case of the workman as also the case of the management, the Labour Court has come to a finding on the basis of evidence, Ext.M-1, which was issued by the Personnel Manager, CCO Dhansar, designating the workman as a Sampling Supervisor, that he has no authority to give such designation to the petitioner and the same cannot be considered as regularization of the petitioner on that post, which is Technical Grade I post, and the petitioner was working and appointed as fitter helper.
(3.) Since, it is a finding of fact, based on the evidence of both sides, I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. However, it appears that the petitioner is working as a sampling supervisor from 1994 and by order dated 17/18.5.97, Ext.M-1, isued by the Personnel Manager, CCO Dhansar, he was designated as a sample supervisor, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in future for his promotion, whenever any post exists, to the post of sampling supervisor or equivalent post, since the petitioner is working for a long time.;