1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4905/2011 (ABDUL WAHAB SHAIKH ISMAIL VERSUS GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ANOTHER) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri A.M. Kadukar, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 22 , 2011 . By this petition, the petitioner impugns the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Nagpur on 21.02.2011 holding that the action of the management in changing the designation of the petitioner vide orders dated 04.08.1985, 31.01.1992 and 22.09.1998 was proper and justified. The petitioner pleaded that after passing the I.T.I. Examination for the trade of Turner, he was appointed as an apprentice by the respondent no.2 and was designated as a General Mazdoor Category-I. He pleaded that he was placed in Turner-Helper Category-II from 01.09.1983. It was the case of the petitioner that the persons junior to the petitioner were promoted and the petitioner was not placed in the trade on higher grade of Turner. The petitioner pleaded that a direction be issued to the respondent no.2 to prepare a correct seniority list of Turners in the establishment and place the petitioner in the Turner Category. It was the case of the petitioner that the placement of the petitioner from Turner Category to Mechanist Category was an unfair labour practice. 2 The respondent no.2 denied the claim of the petitioner and pleaded that the trades of Turner and Mechanist were not strictly demarcated and the Mechanists and Turners were performing jobs of identical and similar nature and the persons working on the posts of Mechanists/Turners were jointly considered for higher posts of Mechanist. The respondent no.2 denied that the petitioner was victimized and his juniors were promoted to the post of Turner though the petitioner was entitled to be promoted. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal rightly held that the action of the respondent no.2 in changing the designation of the petitioner by the three orders was proper and justified. There was no evidence on record to show that the petitioner had worked as an apprentice in Turner grade after his appointment. The petitioner was firstly appointed as General Mazdoor and then promoted as Helper Category-II and not Turner Category-II as per the documents at Exhibits W5 and W6. The petitioner had admitted the documents at Exhibits W5 and W6 and did not dispute the same. The documents produced on record further showed that there was no difference or bifurcation in Turner trade and Mechanist Trade and workers from Turner Trade were being promoted as Mechanist and vice versa. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal found that Shri Ambekar and Shri Ballewar did not supersede the petitioner as pleaded by him. The petitioner was not able to prove before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal that the pay-scales of the employees in Turner trade and Mechanist trade were different and that grave financial loss was caused to the petitioner because he was not posted or promoted as a Turner. For the 3 reasons recorded in the impugned order, the Central Government Industrial Tribunal found that the application dated 26.09.1998 filed by the petitioner was not of any relevance to the controversy involved in the case. The Tribunal recorded that it was difficult to understand as to how the original application was possessed by the petitioner though it was addressed to the Mines Manager. Lastly, it was observed by the Tribunal that though the petitioner was promoted in the Mechanist grade since several years, the petitioner had not challenged the action of the respondent no.2 for a long time. The Tribunal observed on an appreciation of the evidence on record that it appeared that there was a tacit consent of the petitioner for his promotion in the grade of Mechanist. The order passed by the Tribunal appears to be just and proper and is based on a proper appreciation of the evidence tendered by the parties on record. The same calls for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE