1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.6002 OF 2010 (KALIMKHAN HUSSAINKHAN PATHAN...VS.. SUPDT. ENGINEER P.W.D. CHANDRAPUR & ANR.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. G.N.Khanzode, Advocate for Petitioner. Mrs. K. Deshpande, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 and 2. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 1, 2011. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By this petition the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Industrial Court, Chandrapur on 21.10.2010 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for grant of stay to the order passed by the Labour Court on 27.09.2010 dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner seeking a declaration that the respondents had engaged in unfair labour practice under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act by proposing termination of the complainant. It appears, on hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the petitioner had been inducted in the services of the respondents on the basis of a certificate issued by one Hamidkhan, a freedom fighter nominating the petitioner, his alleged real nephew (brother’s son) on the post of clerk which was reserved for the category of 'freedom fighters'. However, it was later on found by the employer that the petitioner has sought employment on the basis of the false certificate as Hamidkhan, the freedom 2 fighter who had issued the nomination letter in favour of the petitioner was not the real uncle of the petitioner. The Labour Court, on an appreciation of the evidence on record dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner with costs. The petitioner approached the Industrial Court in a revision against the order passed by the Labour Court and sought interim stay to the order passed by the Labour Court. The Industrial Court, however, by the impugned order dated 21.10.2010 dismissed the application. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order as well as the order passed by the Labour Court, it appears that the Industrial Court did not commit any error in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner as the petitioner did not have the prima-facie case and the balance of convenience is also not in favour of the petitioner. The Industrial Court observed that the petitioner remained on the post of clerk for the period of almost 21 years on the basis of the false certificate produced by the petitioner for seeking appointment on the post who was reserved for a candidate from freedom fighter category. The Industrial Court rightly rejected the application as the Labour Court had given due weightage to the fact that the petitioner had admitted in his cross examination that his father was not the brother of Hamidkhan but because of the acquaintance between his father and Hamidkhan they both treated each other as brothers. On a perusal of this admission in the cross-examination, it is clear that the petitioner was aware of the fact that the freedom fighter, Hamid khan was not his relative and he could not have grabbed the job on a post which was earmarked for the candidate from the ‘freedom fighter’ category. 3 There is no error in the order passed by the Industrial Court much less a jurisdictional error so as to interfere with the same in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RR..