JUDGMENT - R.M. LODHA, J.:---By this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order passed by the Industrial Court on 5-7-89, whereby the said Court dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner under section 28 of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The petitioner has also prayed for declaration that passing of departmental promotional examination, after attaining age of 45 years was not mandatory in view of the Government Resolution dated 1-11-1977 to the employees of the Corporation. In the writ petition, the petitioner has also prayed that Clauses 39, 44 and 62 of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (Recruitment Promotion, seniority and recategorisation) Procedure may be declared ultra vires.

2. The petitioner (for short `employee) was initially employed as conductor with the respondents (for short `employer). According to the petitioner, in view of his seniority as a conductor, he was promoted to the post of traffic controller from 1971 onwards. In the year 1974, by a consolidated order of promotion to the post of Traffic Controller, the employee was posted at Gadhchiroli Depot by allowing fresh pay scale of post of Traffic Controller. The employer stated that the employee was required to appear for an examination which was meant for promotion to the post of Traffic Controller, in which employee appeared but failed. However, subsequently, employee was sought to be reverted by the employer in the year 1984 and that led the employee to file a complaint against the employer before the Industrial Court under section 28 of the Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The grievance of the employee was that since he was already promoted to the post of Traffic Controller, there was no necessity for appearing in such examination and, therefore, the act of the employer reverting the employee from the post of Traffic Controller was an unfair labour practice. According to the employee, he had already put in 10 years of service continuously as Traffic Controller and even other persons have been promoted to the post of Traffic Controller without passing any examination and, therefore, employee prayed before the Industrial Court that the employer be directed to obstain themselves from reverting the employee and to continue him on the post of Traffic Controller.

3. The employer filed written statement before the Industrial Court and set up a plea that the employee was working as Traffic Controller on purely officiating basis and he was required to pass examination for promotion on the post of Traffic Controller. Employee was given opportunity for appearing in the examination but he failed. It was also stated in the reply that all the persons who have been promoted as Traffic Controller have passed the examination and the subsequent application filed by the employee for permitting him to appear in the examination was time barred. It was also submitted by the employer that mere working as Traffic Controller on officiating basis cannot be said to have created any legal right in favour of the employee for claiming permanency or confirmation as traffic controller.

4. The Industrial Court held enquiry and after hearing the parties concluded that the employee has failed to prove that the employer is engaged in unfair labour practice under items 5, 6, 7 and 9 of Schedule IV of Act of 1971. Consequently, the Industrial Court by its order dated 5-7-1981 rejected the complaint.

5. As stated above, the order passed by the Industrial Court on 5-7-1989 has been challenged by the employee in this petition.

6. At the outset it may be submitted that the learned Counsel for the petitioner has not pressed the reliefs sought for in the petition that clauses 39, 44 and 62 of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (Recruitment, Promotion, Seniority and Recategorisation) Procedure may be declared ultra vires. The learned Counsel for the pet

Click Here to Read the rest of this document