JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioners-workmen, by this writ petition under Article 227 challenge the judgment and order passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court, Pune on August 8, 1984 dismissing their complaint (ULP) No. 21 of 1984. 2. The short facts giving rise to the petition are as under : The petitioner-workmen were working as helpers with the first respondent-company. It was their case that without observing the seniority list they were retrenched on December 28, 1983 while some of the juniors were retained and thus the first respondent company indulged in unfair labour practice covered by Items 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the MRTU and PULP Act'). On such allegation, they filed the unfair labour practice complaint being Complaint (ULP) No. 21 of 1984 in the Industrial Court at Pune. The said complaint was resisted by the first respondent company and it was their contention in the written statement that while retrenching the petitioners some of the juniors were retained but that was for a pure and simple reason that the petitioners were working in different departments and belong to different category of helpers than those who were retained, although juniors, working in different departments and as such their act was bona fide and did not amount to unfair labour practice. At the trial, the petitioners examined two witnesses and so was done by the first respondent company. On appreciation of the evidence adduced before him, the learned Member of the Industrial Court by the impugned Judgment and order came to the conclusion that the action of the management of the first respondent was bona fide inasmuch as they retained some of the juniors of the different categories working in different sections although they were all helpers, as the petitioners would not have been able to do the job in different sections. Accordingly in the opinion of the learned Member of the Industrial Curt there was no act of unfair labour practice indulged in by the first respondent company and as such the complaint was dismissed. Being aggrieved, the petitioner invoked the supervisory writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution by filing the present writ petition. 3. Accordingly in the opinion of the learned Member of the Industrial Curt there was no act of unfair labour practice indulged in by the first respondent company and as such the complaint was dismissed. Being aggrieved, the petitioner invoked the supervisory writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution by filing the present writ petition. 3. Now, the record produced before me shows that as per the evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioners, the work done by the petitioners was the same as the work done by the helpers in die-casting departments whereas the evidence adduced by and on behalf of the first respondent-company is that the work of helper in die-casting section was quite different from the machine shop or pump assembly section. The factory manager deposed that previously there were three sections in the company namely die-casting, machine shop and pump assembly and for the work of pump assembly, Kirloskar Oil Engines was supplying the material and besides the work of Kirloskar Oil Engines, there was no work of pump assembly section. The factory manager also deposed that the work done by the helpers in the die-casting section is rather hazardous and different from the other sections which evidence was not challenged by the petitioners. Moreover, the petitioners did not adduce any evidence that at any time they had done the work in the die section. The learned Member of the Industrial Court, therefore, was quite right in coming to the conclusion that although helpers, the petitioners belong to different category and did different type of work than those of their juniors who were working in different sections and under the circumstances it could not be said that by retaining juniors who were doing different type of work the first respondent company indulged in any unfair labour practice. According to the learned Member of the Industrial Court, the first respondent employer company had not flouted the seniority list purposefully meaning mala fide which appears to be correct because the management of the first respondent company thought, bona fide, that the work which the petitioners were doing was different from the work which the retained workmen were doing, although juniors, in different departments. Thus, the view taken by the learned Member of the Industrial Court is a possible view and the same cannot be termed by any stretch of imagination, as perverse. Thus, the view taken by the learned Member of the Industrial Court is a possible view and the same cannot be termed by any stretch of imagination, as perverse. In the given set of circumstances, one may hold another view of the matter but that does not mean that the view taken by the learned Member of the Industrial Court, Pune here is wrong or perverse and that being so I find no necessity to upset her Judgment and order. 4. Further, the petitioners filed unfair labour practice complaint covered by items 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act. Now, according to Item 9, it will be an unfair labour practice on the part of the employer to fail to implement the award, settlement or agreement and according to Item 10 it would be an unfair labour practice on the part of an employer to indulge in act of force or violence. Ms. Purohit appearing on behalf of the petitioners very fairly admitted that the record does not show that it was the case of the petitioners that their employer failed to implement award, settlement or agreement or indulged in an act of force or violence. Therefore, a complaint of unfair labour practice covered by Items 9 and 10 should fail. Then, according to Item 5, it would be an unfair labour practice on the part of an employer to show favouritism or partiality to one set of workers as against another set of workers bypassing the merits. It is not the case of the petitioners that they were more meritorious than those who were retained and thus the first respondent had shown favouritism or partiality to the set of workmen who were retained. On the contrary, it was the case of the petitioners that if they were absorbed in other departments, they would have learnt work by experience. All this makes it crystal clear that the first respondent here did not show favouritism or partiality to the juniors of the petitioners who were retained and can never be said that it was done so by-passing the claim of more meritorious persons. Therefore, a complaint of unfair labour practice under this Item should also fail. 5. In the result, the writ petition fails and the same stands rejected. Rule is accordingly discharged with no order as to costs.