1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4060 OF 2008 (Rambhau Dhondbaji Bhagat & Ors. vs. M.S.R.T., Nagpur Division, Nagpur) AND WRIT PETITION NO. 4075 OF 2008 (Sanjay Shankarrao Ubale vs. M.S.R.T., Nagpur Division, Nagpur) 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. OCTOBER 14, 2008. Heard Shri Jagdale, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Patil, learned counsel for respondent. The petitioners before this Court were promoted in purely temporary capacity by way of ad-hoc arrangement on the post of Traffic Controller by orders dated 30.04.2007. By innocuous order, they have been brought on their substantive post on 28.2.2008. They approached the Industrial Court with a grievance that this constituted violation of GSO 503. The Industrial Court by order dated 14.7.2008 dismissed that complaint. Shri Jagdale, learned counsel contends that the petitioners have been made scape-goat because of their dispute with Depot Manager and their juniors are still permitted to continue. He further states that till today, the petitioners are 2 working as Traffic Controller and examination to fill in that post is now scheduled on 10.11.2008. He states that if the petitioners succeed in that examination, they are bound to be promoted and if they fail, they will be reverted. According to him, therefore, till the result of examination is out, the petitioners should be permitted to continue on the post of Traffic Controller. Shri Patil, learned counsel, on the other hand, points out that the allegations that there was some dispute with Deputy Manager and therefore, there is victimisation, does not find place in ULP Complaint. He further states that it is not the case of the petitioners that after they are reverted, any juniors have been promoted by the management against those posts. He argues that the respondent management does not need Traffic Controller and, therefore, they have reverted and after examination, if the petitioners succeed, appropriate promotion orders will be issued to them in due course. He also states that the petitioners are already relieved from the post of Traffic Controller and they are working on substantive post. In this background, when the order of promotion itself is for temporary period, reversion of the petitioners by innocuous order on their 3 substantive post does not constitute any unfair labour practice. The story of any victimisation or story of any junior still being continued as Traffic Controller, has not been pleaded in ULP Complaint and, therefore, there is no finding in this respect. It is obvious that it is within the domain of employer to fill in available vacancies in accordance with law. The employer has already initiated that process and written examination is scheduled on 10.11.2008. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere in the the matter. Considering the grievance made by Shri Jagdale, learned counsel that some of the petitioners are due for retirement within next five to six months, I feel that interest of justice can be met with by directing the respondent to declare the result of the examination, scheduled on 10.11.2008, by 31st January 2009. In Writ Petition No. 4075 of 2008, Shri Jagdale, learned counsel points out that the petitioner Shri Sanjay Shankarrao Ubale is presently working as Traffic Controller and he has been further promoted as Traffic Inspector vide order dated 11.10.2008. He has produced the xerox copy of said order on record. Shri Patil, learned counsel seeks time to 4 verify this fact. However, in view of the order already dictated above, the request of Shri Patil, learned counsel is rejected. The perusal of the order reveals that it is issued because of interim order passed in this writ petition. If the respondent – management wants to continue the services of the petitioner – Sanjay Shankarrao Ubale as Traffic Controller or Traffic Inspector, the respondent – management is free to continue him on that post. Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.