1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.2007 of 1996 Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, through its Divisional Controller, Chandrapur. ... Petitioner Versus 1. Wasudeo s/o Bapuraoji Shende, aged about 26 years, r/o Babupeth, Ward No.2, Near Water Tank, Chandrapur. 2. Shri V.V. Shitole, Accountant, Accounts Section, M.S.R.T.C., Chandrapur. ... Respondents Shri A.S. Mehadia, Advocate for Petitioner. CORAM : R.C. Chavan, J. DATED : 22nd April, 2009 Oral Judgment : 1. This petition by Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation is directed against the order 2 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Nagpur, on 17-6-1996, whereby the learned Member held that the petitioner had engaged in unfair labour practice and directed the petitioner to treat workman Wasudeo Bapuraoji Shende as having been temporarily promoted to officiate as Accountant with effect from 31-8-1988. 2. Though notice had been issued to the respondent-workman, none appears for him. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. The workman in page 2 of his complaint had specifically stated that he had been promoted to the post of Accountant after passing of the departmental examination by order dated 3-7-1985. His work was not found to be satisfactory. The workman was on probation and, therefore, he was not confirmed in the said post and was reverted by the order dated 21-6-1988. This order has not been challenged by the workman before any authority. Thereafter the official next to the 3 workman in seniority had been appointed to officiate as Accountant by order dated 31-8-1988. In the meantime, after reversion, the complainant was found guilty of misconduct and had been dismissed. He filed a complaint and thereafter he was ordered to be reinstated and was accordingly reinstated on 4-9-1995 in the post which he held at the time of his dismissal, i.e. Time Keeper. Thereafter he filed a complaint under Section 28 of the MRTU and PULP Act read with Item 9 of Schedule IV of the said Act complaining about promotion of his junior. On this complaint, the impugned order has been passed. 4. I have gone through the impugned order. If a person is denied promotion and his junior is promoted bypassing the claim of such person, he would indeed have a grievance, which could amount to unfair labour practice as per Item 9 of Schedule IV of the said Act. However, here the complainant had been promoted and 4 was found to have failed to perform to the satisfaction of the Department and, therefore, was reverted. The Department cannot be compelled to promote a person, who cannot perform to its satisfaction. Therefore, promoting the junior of the complainant cannot amount to unfair labour practice. The learned Member, Industrial Court, erred in concluding otherwise and directing that the workman was entitled to benefits as if he was promoted to the post of Accountant on 31-8-1988. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that when the workman became eligible, he was promoted to the post of Accountant. This shows that the Department had absolutely no bias and had no design to treat the workman unfairly. Since he had not performed to the satisfaction of the Department, his reversion cannot be termed as unfair labour practice. 6. In view of this, the petition must succeed. The impugned order dated 17-6-1996 passed by the learned 5 Member, Industrial Court, Nagpur is quashed and set aside. 7. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs. JUDGE Lanjewar