1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4437/2009. Govind Laxmanrao Borade -: VERSUS :- Zilla Parishad, Akola and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : AUGUST 10, 2010. Heard Shri S.G. Jagtap, learned Counsel for petitioner, Shri H.D. Dubey, learned Counsel for respondent no. 1 and Mrs. S.W. Deshpande, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4. Petitioner filed ULP Complaint No. 74/1991 and sought correction of his designation as 'Pump Operator' in place of 'Pump Attendant'. Contention was, he ought to have been brought on CRTE as pump operator. Learned Member of the Industrial Court has by the impugned judgment dated 02.03.2008 rejected that complaint. Shri Jagtap, learned Counsel has contended that the petitioner was working as pump operator only and he got qualification in 1979. If his working after 1979 is to be 2 looked into, the designation as pump operator could have been conferred upon petitioner from 1984. The act of bringing him on CRTE as pump attendant is therefore, unsustainable. He has also argued that the documents on record conclusively establish that after 1986 though designated as pump attendant (Class-IV) post the petitioner has worked all throughout till his superannuation as pump operator i.e. a Class-III post. Shri Dubey, learned Counsel for respondent no.1 has pointed out initial appointment of petitioner was as pump attendant and he was brought on CRTE. According to him pump attendant is Class-IV post equivalent to the post of mazoor. He has invited attention to certain admission given by the petitioner in this respect in his cross examination. He further states that working after 1986 was not relevant for adjudication of dispute as raised before the Industrial Court and hence same cannot be a ground before this Court. The appreciation of evidence by the Industrial Court reveals that the petitioner was working on a Class-IV post at pump attendant. He admitted that he was aware of superior nature of work and higher pay sale available to the post of pump attendant or pump driver. He unequivocally accepted that when he was brought on CRTE, he was working as pump attendant. In view of this discussion, it is clear that the consideration of the controversy by the 3 Industrial Court cannot be said to be either erroneous or perverse. Shri Jagtap, learned Counsel at this stage has urged that the entitlement of petitioner to come on CRTE as pump operator in view of his qualification in 1979 and continuous work after 1986 on that post should be considered by this Court. The facts show that the petitioner acquired necessary qualification in 1979 and he could have been brought on CRTE as pump operator, had he then fulfilled other conditions. However, as rightly pointed out by Shri Dubey, learned Counsel the work done by the petitioner after 1986 was not relevant for adjudication before the Industrial Court and hence without giving particulars about nature of that work or about its continuous nature, I am not in a position to record any finding in that respect. The question basically is a question of fact which needs to be gone into by the Industrial Court only. The petitioner has entered service in 1976 and stood superannuated on reaching the age of of superannuation. The documents on record prima facie show that after 1986 work of pump operator has been taken from him. In this situation without any prejudice to rights and contentions of the present respondent, I am inclined to give petitioner an opportunity to show these facts to the Industrial Court in appropriate challenge. The petitioner can file 4 appropriate ULP Complaint in accordance with law for ventilating this grievance. The liberty given by this Court shall not in any way influence consideration of such challenge by the Industrial Court. Shri Jagtap, learned Counsel states that the respondents should be left free to consider even representation made by the petitioner. The respondents are always free to consider any such representation if made by the petitioner. With these observations and liberty, Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.