10-J-WP-7379-22 1/7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.7379 OF 2022 1. The President, Janta Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Pusad Tahsil : Pusad, District Yavatmal (Original respondent no.1) 2. The Principal B. N. College of Engineering, Pusad, Tah : Pusad, District : Yavatmal (Original respondent no.2) … Petitioner. vs. Kisan Ratansingh Rathod, Aged: Adult, Occu: Nil R/o B. N. Engineering College Hostel, Office Karla Road, Pusad, Tah: Pusad, Dist: Yavatmal (Original complainant) … Respondent Shri S. S. Ghate, Advocate for petitioners. Shri A. P. Raghute, Advocate for respondent. CORAM : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 8th September, 2026 Oral Judgment : Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. The present petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India prays for quashing and setting aside judgment and order dated 22/08/2022 passed by the Industrial Court, Yavatmal in Complaint (ULPA) No.206/2017. By the said judgment impugned in 10-J-WP-7379-22 2/7 the petition, the Industrial Court has allowed the complaint filed by the respondent herein and passed the following order : “ Complaint is allowed. 2] It is hereby declared that respondents are engaged in unfair labour practice under Item 5 and 9 of Sch.IV of Section 28 of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 and they are directed not to continue the unfair labour practice. (i) If the promotional post is vacant, the respondents are directed to give promotion to the complainant to his next promotional posting, and the complainant is entitled for all benefits from the institution of this complaint till it's realisation. Alternatively, (i) if the next promotional post is not available then it is necessary to direct respondents to send the proposal for the creation of promotional post within 3 months from this order. (ii) On creation of promotional post, the complainant be promoted to his next promotional post and he is entitled for all the benefits as a regular employee on said promotional post from the date of institution of this complaint till its realisation. 4] No order as to costs. 2. I have heard Shri S. S. Ghate, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri A. P. Raghute, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. It is primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners Shri Ghate that the Industrial Court has exceeded the jurisdiction and directed creation of additional post even though by way of alternate direction. He submits that no such direction should 10-J-WP-7379-22 3/7 have been given by the Industrial Court looking to the settled law in that regard. He submits that right to get promoted to a particular post would not be a vested right and only right of consideration for promotion would be vested right. He also submits that the complaint as filed was under Item-5 and Item 9 of Schedule IV of Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short, The MRTU and PULP Act). The said items appearing in Schedule-IV pertain to favoritism to one set of employees and implementation of award or such order. He submits that the case of the petitioners was plain and simple that as the post was not available, the respondent was not promoted. It is therefore his submission that neither Item-5 nor Item-9 would be attracted and therefore he submits that the impugned judgment is liable to be quashed and set aside. 4. Per contra, Shri A. P. Raghute, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-employee supports the impugned judgment. He points me out letter which is appearing at 67 of the petition stating therein that the respondent-employee was infact appointed by Engineering College. He submits that the petitioners herein did not choose to adduce any evidence and therefore the Industrial Court was right in allowing the complaint. He also submits that Section 30 of the MRTU and PULP 10-J-WP-7379-22 4/7 Act gives power to the Court for granting such relief as has been granted as reproduced supra. He also places reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and anr. vs. Casteribe Rajya Prarivahan Karmchari Sanghatna (2009) 8 SCC 556 and the judgment of this Court in Ashok Udaram Pathrabe vs. Maharashtra Remote Sensing Application Centre, Nagpur and ors. 2007(1) Mh.L.J. 519. 5. Rival contentions fall for my consideration. I have gone through the judgment of the Industrial Court and the documents filed along with the present petition. As can be seen from the judgment of the Industrial Court, the most important aspect which has weighed with the said Court is omission of the petitioners to lead any evidence. It has therefore proceeded on the premise that the averments in the complaint and evidence adduced by the complainant are gospel truth. This in my considered opinion is not only incorrect but contrary to the settled position of law. In addition to that, it seems that the Industrial Court has relied on the various admissions in cross-examination of the employee wherein he states that he has no document to show that he was working on the post of Clerk and prays for promotional post of Superintendent. 10-J-WP-7379-22 5/7 6. It is seen from the averments made in the complaint and admissions in cross-examination that the complainant himself is not clear that on which post he is working and on which post he is seeking promotion. If it is a case of the complainant that even though he was working as Peon he was made to work as Clerk, it was obligatory on him to show what is the eligibility/qualification for the post of Clerk, whether the post of Superintendent is legally available. Staffing pattern should have been placed on record to support the contentions in the complaint. A vague averment is made in the complaint that the promotional post of Superintendent is made on the basis of which, the Industrial Court has proceeded to allow the complaint. 7. In my considered opinion, Section 30 and more particularly clause-(d) thereof of the MRTU and PULP Act cannot be stretched to such an extent as has been done by the Industrial Court by granting relief to the complainant-employee thereby holding that the respondents are directed to give promotion to him to next promotional post. Apart from the fact that it does not specify exact promotional post, it does not vest any right in the petitioner for promotion. It is held by catena of decisions of this Court that there is no vested right for promotion, the only right is a right to be considered for promotion in accordance with the service Rules. The judgment of the Industrial 10-J-WP-7379-22 6/7 Court seems to be directly in teeth of well settled provisions of law. 8. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the judgment of this Court in Ashok Pathrabe (supra) is concerned, is in facts of that case and is misconceived. It only shows that if a party does not enter into witness box and states its own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross-exmained by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct. The proposition cannot be disputed and is also found in Section 114 of the Evidence Act. However, it cannot be stretched to the extent that only case of other side who adduces evidence as per the averments in the complaint are to be regarded as gospel truth. 9. The entire approach of the Industrial Court seems to be without considering the settled position in that regard. As far as judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Casterib Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana (supra) is concerned, the proposition in the said ruling cannot be disputed. However, the said matter pertains to regularisation and not permanency. The said judgment therefore would not be applicable in any case to the case in hand. 10. Taking overall view of the matter, the judgment of the Industrial Court is not only contrary to the settled position of law but 10-J-WP-7379-22 7/7 perverse findings are recorded inasmuch as creating a post for promotional avenue. The judgment suffers from perversity and is liable to be interfered with in writ jurisdiction. Hence following order is passed: (a) Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer Clause (ii). (b) The judgment and order dated 22/08/2022 passed by the Industrial Court, Yavatmal in Complaint (ULPA) No.2026/2017 is quashed and set aside. (c) Complaint (ULPA) No.206/2017 is rejected. 11. Rule is made absolute in above terms. 12. No order as to costs. (NANDESH S. DESHPANDE J.) Asmita Signed by: Smt. Asmita A. Bhandakkar Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 13/09/2026 11:21:27