1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8242 OF 2009 Mohan Eknath Kote .. PETITIONER VERSUS Chief Executive Officer .. RESPONDENT Mr. P.V. Barde, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.R. Dhorde, Advocate for the respondent. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 29th MARCH, 2010 PER COURT : 1 A complaint was presented to the Industrial court, Ahmednagar in respect of unfair labour practice allegedly committed by the employer. Complainant contends that he is entitled to be promoted in accordance with the time bound promotion scheme and the employer has not considered the case of the petitioner. However, the cases of the similarly siuate employees have been considered whereas the petitioner alone is singled out which amounts to unfair labour practice on the part of the employer. Grievance is also made in respect of his alleged transfer effected by the employer which according to the employee is with vindictive 2 attitude. The employer has refuted the allegations contained in the complaint and it has been brought to the notice of the court that there were various enquires initiated against the complainant / petitioner herein and since 1978 to 2007, he has been punished for about 43 times. Considering the past service record of the employee, his case has not been considered under the time bound promotion scheme. 2 I have perused the judgment recorded by the Industrial court, Ahmednagar. It cannot be controverted that at different points of time, action was initiated against the complainant / petitioner herein and he has been punished for about 43 times during his service tenure. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the allegations levelled against the complainant are of trifle nature and action has been taken against him only with a view to create unfair record against him. It transpires on perusal of the annexure R2 annexed with the affidavit in reply by the respondent / employee that since 1978 onwards at different points of time, action appears to have been initiated against the employee in respect of his failure to perform the duties or in respect of minor mis-conduct. Consideration of the case of employee under the time bound promotion scheme is not a matter of right and benefit is awarded taking into consideration the service record 3 of the concerned employee. Considering the material placed on record, and on consideration of the findings recorded by the Industrial Court, I am of the opinion that the Industrial court has adopted reasonable approach and the order passed by the court appears to be proper. Merely rejection of the claim of the complainant / petitioner herein at particular point of time for securing time bound promotion by itself will not disentitle the complainant permanently from being considered under the scheme. The employer is at liberty to consider the case of the petitioner / employee on the basis of guidelines incorporated in the scheme. It is made clear that dismissal of the complaint and rejection of this writ petition by itself will not be an impediment for taking review. Petition is devoid of substance hence stands rejected. 3 In view of dismissal of petition, pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/wp8242.09.odt