1 WP-5447-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5447 OF 2011 Nashik Municipal Corporation ..Petitioner Vs Ghrushneshwar Kacharu Namwal and anr. ..Respondents -- Mr.M.L.Patil, for petitioner. Mr.Tejpal Ingale, for respondent no.1. -- CORAM : R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE : 21 st SEPTEMBER, 2011 P.C.: Heard Mr.M.L.Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Tejpal Ingale, learned counsel for respondent no.1. 2] By this petition, the petitioner – Nashik Municipal Corporation has challenged the judgment and order dated 31 st January, 2011 2 WP-5447-11.sxw passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Nashik in Complaint (ULP) No.110 of 2010. By that judgment, the learned Member partly allowed the complaint and declared that the petitioner herein has engaged in unfair labour practices covered by items, 5, 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short “Act”) by not giving promotion to the respondent no.1 – complainant to the post of Junior Clerk. The petitioner was directed to give promotion to the respondent no.1 – complainant on the post of Jr. Clerk from 17 th May, 2003 in the pay scale of Rs.4000-100-6000 within one month from the date of the order. 3] In support of the petition, Mr. Patil submitted that the Industrial Court failed to consider that respondent no.1 was regularised as Begari with effect from 17 th May, 2003 as per the Government Resolution and therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner had in any way committed unfair labour practice. He further submitted that the Industrial Court committed error in holding that the respondent no. 1 was entitled to promotion in the post of Junior Clerk with effect from 3 WP-5447-11.sxw 17 th May, 2003. 4] On the other hand, Mr. Ingale supported the impugned order. 5] It is not in dispute that respondent no.1 joined services of petitioner from 11 th November, 1997 on daily wages of Rs.41/- per day. There is also not dispute that the first respondent has passed B.A., L.S.G.D., MS-CIT, Diploma in Computer Science. It is also not in dispute that the requisite qualification for the appointment to the post of Jr. Clerk is S.S.C. or having passed Matric with English subject and 5 years’ experience of Mukadam cum Clerk or 10 years’ experience of Peon. 6] The learned Member, Industrial Court, in paragraph 10, recorded that respondent no.1 passed B.A. in the year 1996. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner – Corporation absorbed the persons who were also physically handicapped persons in class IV category and in class III category. The learned Member, on the basis of the material on record, held that respondent no.1 was entitled to be 4 WP-5447-11.sxw absorbed as Junior Clerk with effect from 17 th March, 2003. I do not find that the learned Member committed any error of law apparent on the face of record or that the impugned order suffers from perversity. In the result, no interference is called for. Petition fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. [R.G.KETKAR, J.]