1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4705 OF 2008 Vasant Bajrang Pise ...Petitioner vs. The Superintendent Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Board & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.D.R. Parab i/b. Mr.M.G. Gawde for the Petitioner. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : JUNE 17, 2009 P.C. :- 1 Heard Counsel for the petitioner. 2 The petitioner is challenging judgment and award passed by the Industrial Court dated 3 rd May, 2008 whereby the Industrial court was pleased to dismiss the complaint filed by the petitioner herein under Section 28 of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 alleging unfair labour practice by the respondents under Item 9 Schedule IV of the said Act. Brief facts are as under :- 2 3 The petitioner s case in brief is that he joined the services of the respondent no.1 company as a Junior Operator on 7 th July, 1985. It is his case that though he ought to have been promoted as a Assistant Machine Operator in 1991, no order of promotion was issued in his favour. Thereafter, however, on 1 st April, 1995, the benefits of the promotional post were given to him. However, an order of promotion was not issued by the respondents and thereafter, on 14 th February, 2000 the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Machine Operator. He, therefore, filed the complaint (ULP) No.20 of 2005 before the Industrial Court. The respondents filed their reply in which it was alleged that the confidential report of the petitioner is not good. The Industrial Court after going through the material which was produced on record by both the parties, held that the petitioner was not promoted because his confidential report is not good. The Industrial Court has observed that though the confidential report of the complainant 3 for the relevant period was good, his confidential report of the technical side i.e. Part II b was poor in respect of 1) Power of organisation, 2) Speed, 3) Quality, 4) Adequacy in relation to inspection and test check works, 5) Promptness in restoration of interrupted supply and 6) Elimination of electrical/mechanical accidents. 4 The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that because the confidential report of the complainant was good, he ought to have been promoted, cannot be accepted since his confidential report on the technical side, admittedly, is poor. There is no merit, therefore, in the submission made by the Counsel for the petitioner. No case is made out for interfering with the order passed by the Industrial Court while exercising writ jurisdiction of this Court. 5 Writ Petition, accordingly, is dismissed. (V.M. KANADE, J.)