1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No: 1503/2008 (Khushal Rambhau Uikey vs. Deputy Director of Education Amravati Division ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram Court's or Judges Order appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders. ................................................................................................................................... Mr. R D Wakode Adv. for petitioner CORAM: A H JOSHI, J. DATED: 4th April, 2008. *** The petitioner is challenging the order passed on application under section 30 sub-section (2) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, whereby learned Member, Industrial Court, Amravati has rejected petitioner's application for interim relief. 2 Admittedly, it is the case of order of punishment passed by Director of Education and an order of posting consequent upon revocation of suspension. Both these orders are alleged to be unfair labour practice under item 3, item 5 and item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act. 3. This is a case of giving order of posting to an employee who was under suspension and it is necessary to give him a posting, such a posting cannot be regarded as a transfer, much less mala fide. Just because it does 2 not suit him and he is required to go to a different station, he cannot make a grievance that such order of giving posting amounts to a transfer. 4. So far as the issue regarding stoppage of increment is concerned, it is purportedly passed under sub-rules (III) and (IV) of Rule (V) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal ) Rules, 1979. 5. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has very fervently argued that cumulativeness of stoppage of increment is impermissible under clause (IV) of the aforesaid Rules. 6. While challenging the departmental inquiry the petitioner has raised an issue that the copy of appointment order of Presenting Officer was not supplied to him. The order of appointment of Presenting Officer would be a document of no significance unless it could be related to denial of opportunity of hearing which is not an allegation raised by the petitioner in the present case. 7. Nevertheless the punishment of stoppage of increments being a minor penalty could have been ordered without holding departmental inquiry. 8. The petitioner who could have urged as a matter of right questions as to re-appreciation of evidence and reconsideration of the material before the Inquiry Officer had he preferred an appeal to the 3 Appellate Authority under the provisions of Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal ) Rules, 1978. Instead, he has mostly because he was so advised, he has chosen to take a recourse to the remedy of filing a complaint before the Industrial Court. While the doctrine of election would be available to the petitioner and since advised, the petitioner may have filed a Complaint before the Industrial Court, he has in the result chosen to neglect to the better remedies available. Petitioner has thus preferred a forum which would consider the limited issue, namely, 'whether the acts complained of would fit into the limited definition of unfair labour practice'. 9. Be that, as it may; it is sweet choice of the litigant to choose the forum. The judgment impugned, however, in the background of above discussion, is not found to be erroneous. It is not alleged that any of the material available on record or piece of evidence is not considered. 10. The petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference. Petition is dismissed. JUDGE sahare