: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4260 OF 2010 Babasaheb Bapu Kamble .. Petitioner V/s. Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Krushi Gramin Bahu Uddyeshiya Vikas Bank Karmachari Sanghatana, Kolhapur & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. D.V. Sutar for the Petitioner. Mr. S.S. Pakale i/b. Mr. Kiran Kumar Phakade for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Ms. Ranjana Todankar for Respondent No.3. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 29 TH JUNE, 2010. P.C.: 1. The Writ Petition challenges the order dated 29th April, 2010 passed by the Industrial Court, Kolhapur in Complaint (ULP) No.24 of 2004, allowing the Complaint filed by the respondent No.1-Union. In the said Complaint, the respondent No.1-Union had alleged that the respondent No.3-Bank had indulged in unfair labour practices under Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short “the MRTU & PULP Act). : 2 : 2. According to the respondent No.1-Union, certain circulars with respect to promotions had not been followed apart from the fact that a G.R. of 27th March, 1997 had also been breached while affording promotions to some employees. The petitioner was promoted from category-8 to category-7 which the respondent No.1-Union contended was incorrect as the aforesaid circulars and G.R. were not complied with. Apart from the petitioner, promotions of some other employees were also challenged by the respondent No.1-Union. 3. The Industrial Court, Kolhapur, has allowed the Complaint filed by respondent No.1-Union by declaring that the respondent No.3-Bank had committed unfair labour practices under Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. The respondent No.3-Bank was further directed to consider the seniority list prepared for the Apex Bank in the year 1988 as a central list according to the grades. Upon considering the directions in circulars of 26th November, 1998 and 28th June, 2001 : 3 : read with G.R. dated 27th March, 1997, the respondent No.3-Bank was directed to prepare a fresh provisional seniority list. The respondent No.3-Bank was further directed to invite the objections, if any, to the same and then display the final seniority list. The Industrial Court has also directed that the promotions given without considering the aforesaid circulars and Government Resolution were not valid and the employees were directed to be reverted to their original posts without recovering the monetary benefits which had been extended to them from the period that they occupied the promotional posts, albeit illegally. 4. The learned Advocate for the respondent No.3- Bank states that the directions of the Industrial Court have been carried out. Objections were invited from the employees, including the petitioner in respect of the provisional seniority list and the respondent No.3-Bank is now going to display the final seniority list in July, 2010. : 4 : 5. In my opinion, therefore, there is no need to interfere with this Writ Petition. 6. Apart from this, the learned Advocate for the petitioner has contended that since the petitioner was promoted to a managerial post, the Industrial Court has no jurisdiction to revert the petitioner to his original post. This submission cannot be accepted since the respondent No.1-Union was challenging his promotion from a post which was occupied by an employee, as defined under Section 3(13) of the BIR Act, and therefore the complaint has rightly been held to be maintainable. The submission of the learned Advocate that the petitioner’s second promotion was in the general category and not in the reserved category, as alleged by the respondent No.1-Union, need not be considered at this stage. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the seniority list, which will be put up after considering his objections, he can always challenge that list. : 5 : 7. In case the petitioner does challenge the seniority list, which would be put up in compliance with the order of the Industrial Court impugned in the present Writ Petition, the Court considering the petitioner’s challenge will not be bound by the order passed in the present Complaint. 8. The Writ Petition is dismissed.