1 wp2829.11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2829 OF 2011 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mr. A.N. Irpatgire, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.J. Ghute-Patil, A.G.P. for respondent no.1. Mr. V. P. Latange, Advocate for respondent no.3. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 25th APRIL, 2011 Heard Advocates Mr. Irpatgire for petitioner, Mr. Latange for respondent no.3 and learned A.G.P. for respondent no.1. Order dated 30.06.2010 does not show that arrangement made thereby was temporary. In written statement filed before the Industrial Court stand was taken that arrangement made was temporary. However, respondent no.2 who does not fall in next below cadre has been chosen for such appointment and has been made Assistant Secretary of A.P.M.C. Respondent no.3- complainant who is more senior in service and also qualified as per service Rules has not been given that 2 wp2829.11 posting. 2. Before this Court contention is, as Administrator was to remain in office for limited period, he made the arrangement which was found best as respondent no.2 is graduate. The administrator can make any arrangement temporarily but then he has to show that he has acted honestly in the matter. That can be reflected by producing relevant records. Here, no such records are produced before Industrial Court. The Administrator could have produced the record to show names looked into by him while effecting that arrangement and reasons why he found particular person suitable or then others not suitable. Alleged temporary arrangement is made on 30th June, 2010 and is continuing even today i.e. for past about 10 months. Why proper steps to make permanent arrangement could not be taken in the meanwhile is not understood. 3. Compromise before the Lokadalat in which A.P.M.C. agreed to give seniority to respondent no.2 from 01.06.1980 can not operate to the prejudice of the present respondent no.3, who is more senior. Learned Member of the Industrial Court has not expressly given any reason for ignoring that compromise but then it has find respondent no.3 is senior to respondent no.2 and is not party to compromise. 3 wp2829.11 4. In this situation, I do not see any jurisdictional error or perversity. Finding of Industrial Court of indulgence in unfair labour practice is proper. Hence, Petition is rejected. No costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE gas/wp2829.11