1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.6414/2006 ( Deorao Natthuji Karunadhan(Budlek) vs. C.E.O. Z.P. Amravti & ors) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Shri S.G.Deshpande, Adv. For petitioner CORAM : Smt. Vasant A. Naik, J. DATE : 11 th November, 2008 By the instant petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Industrial Court, Amravati, on 12.10.2006, dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner for a declaration that the respondent had committed unfair labour practice under Items 5 & 9 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971. It was the case of the petitioner that respondents were not entitled to revert the petitioner from the post of driver to the post of attendant without holding a departmental enquiry. 2/- It is not in dispute that the petitioner was temporarily promoted on the post of a driver only for a period of six months on a condition 2 that he would be reverted to his original post in case his services are not found satisfactory. In view of this condition, the Industrial Court, Amravati, rightly held that there was no unfair labour practice committed by the respondent in reverting the petitioner to the post of attendant as his work was not found satisfactory during the period of six months. 3/- It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that during the period of six months of temporary promotion, the petitioner was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the IPC and he had been cleanly acquitted by the judgment dated 2nd March, 1998, and in this view of the matter, the respondents were not entitled to revert the petitioner to the post of attendant. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner is not well founded as the services of the petitioner who was temporarily promoted on the post of driver for a period of six months, was reverted to his original post in view of the fact that his services were not found satisfactory. 3 4/- In this background, it was not necessary for the respondent to hold full-fledged departmental enquiry against the petitioner. The Judgment reported in 2000(3) ALL MR 448 and relied on by the counsel of the respondent is distinguishable on facts and is not helpful to the case of the petitioner. 5/- For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed, with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rvjalit