(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 2084 OF 2011 Dattatraya s/o. Dhondiba Sitapure, Age : 50 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Vikram Nagar, Latur, Taluka and District : Latur. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Latur, Taluka and District : Latur. 2. The District Health Officer, Zilla Parishad, Latur, Taluka and District : Latur. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. Girish N. Kulkarni (Mardikar), Advocate, for the petitioner. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 18TH MARCH 2011 (2) COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard Adv. Mr. Girish Kulkarni, for the petitioner. 2. According to the learned Counsel, the Chief Executive Officer has on 14-9-2010 appointed the petitioner against the vacant post. According to him, by the impugned order dated 17-1-2011, the clarification, that it was not appointment against vacant post but only an additional charge has been given to the petitioner, came to be issued. He states that this is nothing but abuse of power and learned Member of the Industrial Court should not have accepted mere stand in written statement in this respect. The necessary documents ought to have been looked into. 3. Perusal of written statement shows that the office note dated 17-12-2009 had proposed giving of additional charge to the petitioner and inadvertently on 14-9-2010, appointment order came to be issued. It is also mentioned that on 12-10-2010, some action in the matter is directed. 4. ULP Complaint filed before Industrial Court by the present petitioner is under Item 3 of Scheduled IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of (3) Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. Learned Member of the Industrial Court has correctly appreciated the facts at interim stage. Whether there are any mala fides in the matter or then, it is in violation of any service condition or it constitutes an unfair labour practice under any other Item, like Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the said Act, are the disputed questions. There is no immediate prejudice caused to the petitioner. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere in the matter at this stage. 5. In the result, the petition is dismissed. However, learned Member of the Industrial Court, Latur, shall attempt to decide Complaint (ULP) No. 7/2011 at the earliest. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp2084