JUDGMENT : B.N. SRIKRISHNA, J. 1. This is a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India directed against the order of the Industrial Court, Nasik, dated 16-11-1987, made in Complaint (ULP) No. 8 of 1986, under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The Petitioner is a State Electricity Board constituted under the Maharashtra Electricity Act and carries on the business of generation and distribution of electricity within the State of Maharashtra. The Respondent is an employee of the Petitioner-Board. 3. The Respondent was initially employed as a line-helper and was subsequently promoted on 21st August, 1971, as Assistant Lineman. It appears that the prospects of promotion for the employees in the service of the Petitioner-Board were dim, either because in several years there were no well defined channels of promotion, or because there were no clear vacancies in which people could be promoted. In order to eliminate the hardship caused to the employees, the Government of Maharashtra issued General Order No. 74 of 1974 under which an employee who had completed 10 years in a given post on 1.5.1974, including officiating service, and who had not got promotion to a higher post for no fault of his own, (a) for want of a clear vacancy or (b) want of a channel of promotion, or an employee who would complete 10 years service in a given post after 1.5.1974 and who may not get promotion for the same reasons, was held entitled to be promoted to the next higher post in the channel of promotion or to the next higher grade, if there was no such channel of promotion, from 1.5.1974 or from the date immediately following the date on which the employee completed 10 years service in the same post, as the case may be. The pay of the employee was directed to be fixed in that post/grade in accordance with Service Regulation 29(a) irrespective of the fact of availability of suitable vacancies in the next higher post. There was, however, a proviso to this principle, namely, that the employee who was considered for the benefit of G.O. 74 had to be otherwise fit for promotion on the basis of overall performance. 4. There was, however, a proviso to this principle, namely, that the employee who was considered for the benefit of G.O. 74 had to be otherwise fit for promotion on the basis of overall performance. 4. In the Respondent's Confidential Record for the year 1978-79 there were adverse remarks regarding his integrity, behaviour with the members of public and his ability to organise the work. These were communicated to the Respondent on 11.9.1979. Again in the year 1979-80 there were adverse remarks regarding the Respondent's work which were communicated to him on 21st July, 1980. On neither occasion did the Respondent make any representation against the adverse remarks, nor did he follow the prescribed procedure under the Rules for review of the adverse remarks and setting them aside. Thus the adverse remarks in the Confidential reports remained intact in both the said years. 5. On 1.4.1980 the case of the Respondent was put up to the Departmental Selection Committee for consideration along with certain other employees. The Departmental Selection Committee rejected the case of the Respondent for promotion and held him ineligible for promotion on the basis of his Confidential Reports. Again on 1.4.1982 the Selection Committee held that the Respondent was not entitled to be considered for promotion on the basis of his Confidential Record. However, the Respondent was lucky the third time and on 1.4.1984, on review of his Confidential Record and overall performance the Selection Committee selected him for promotion to next grade, which was granted from 1.4.1984. 6. The Respondent moved Complaint (ULP) No. 8 of 1986, under the provisions of section 28 read with Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Act, before the Industrial Court at Nasik. The gist of the complaint was that he had not been given the benefit of G.O. No. 74 as a result of which he had not been granted promotion, though he was due for promotion to the higher grade from 1.4.1980. He alleged that there was thus an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act on the part of the Petitioner-Board and prayed for consequential relief of being given promotion and fixation of his pay in the next higher grade with effect from 1.4.1980. 7. Before the Industrial Court, the parties led their evidence which included the Confidential Reports of the Respondent during his service. 7. Before the Industrial Court, the parties led their evidence which included the Confidential Reports of the Respondent during his service. The Industrial Court took the view that, though the adverse remarks in the Confidential Reports for the years 1978-79 and 1979-80 had been duly communicated to the Respondent, since the letter communicating the adverse remarks was in English and the Respondent was not conversant with English, it did not amount to any communication at all. The Respondent was communicated the adverse report for the year 1978-79 on or about 15th September, 1979, and by his letter dated 19th December, 1979, he protested that he could not understand the contents of the said letter in English and, therefore, requested for being supplied with the Marathi version of the said report. Curiously, the Industrial Court did find that there was force in the argument of the petitioner that the said grievance, which was made after considerable lapse of time of about three months, appeared to be a lame grievance and that in the said three months the Respondent could have easily got himself acquainted with the contents of the said letter. Another curious fact is that the adverse report for the year 1979-80 was communicated in English to the respondent by a letter dated 21st July, 1980 and, in respect thereof there was no grievance made by the Respondent. There was nothing shown to the Industrial Court that there was any rule or regulation which obliged the Petitioner-Board to communicate the adverse report in any particular language. Despite of these circumstances, the Industrial Court took the view that there was no proper communication of the adverse remarks of the year 1978-79 and, therefore, the adverse remarks for the years 1978-79 could not be used against him. Another reason given by the Industrial Court for holding against the Respondent is that, in the prescribed form of the Confidential Report against the Column IV, "Fitness for Promotion" the Officer making the Confidential Report had not stated that the Respondent was not fit for promotion. Another reason given by the Industrial Court for holding against the Respondent is that, in the prescribed form of the Confidential Report against the Column IV, "Fitness for Promotion" the Officer making the Confidential Report had not stated that the Respondent was not fit for promotion. In this view of the matter, the Industrial Court held that the Respondent was entitled to the benefit of G.O. No. 74 of 1974 and held that the Petitioner-Board had indulged in unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act and directed the Petitioner-Board to fix the pay of the Respondent in the next higher grade with effect from 1.4.1980 and grant him all arrears of pay and other benefits. Hence this writ petition. 8. The Industrial Court had allowed the complaint for two reasons both of which are unsustainable and arise from a misdirection in law, in my view. In the first place, there does not appear to be any material placed on record of the Industrial Court to show that the Petitioner-Board was required to send its communications to its employees in any particular language. Nothing is shown that there was any requirement that the adverse remarks in the Confidential Report had to be communicated by the Petitioner-Board to its employees in Marathi. Even the Industrial Court was conscious of the fact that the excuse put-forth was a lame one. In the circumstances of the case, the Industrial Court, therefore, erred in holding that there was no proper communication of the adverse remarks in the Confidential Report of 1978-79 and that the said adverse remarks could not be used against the Respondent. The second ground on which the Industrial Court held against the Petitioner-Board, is also unsustainable. As a matter of fact, the Reporting Officer, Assistant Engineer, had made his remark against Column IV, "Fitness for Promotion" as "Considerable" (Perhaps meaning that the employee may be considered for promotion). The Executive Engineer, who was the Countersigning Officer, in his remarks in Column IV stated that the integrity of the Respondent was doubtful as several complaints from public had been received about his corrupt practices and harassment to public. His assessment was : "below average". For the years 1979-80, in the Column IV "Fitness for Promotion", the Sub/Engineer remarked "as in routine course" about which there were no remarks made by the Assistant Engineer who was the Counter-signing Officer. His assessment was : "below average". For the years 1979-80, in the Column IV "Fitness for Promotion", the Sub/Engineer remarked "as in routine course" about which there were no remarks made by the Assistant Engineer who was the Counter-signing Officer. But here again, there were several adverse remarks against the Respondent. In these circumstances, to say that the Respondent was entitled to the benefit of the G.O. No. 74, because there were no specific observations by the Reporting Officer that the Respondent was not fit for promotion, is nothing but sophistry. There is no charm in using the words "not fit for promotion". After all, for promoting the employee what is required to be gathered is his overall suitability and the positive or negative points of his character. It is evident that the negative points in the respondent's Confidential Record were over-whelming and, therefore, the Selection Committee had no difficulty in refusing to consider his case on two occasions, on 1.4.1980 and again on 1.4.1982. Even Rule 1(i) of the G.O. No. 74, limits the benefit available under sub-rule (1), provided such employee is "otherwise fit for promotion" on the basis of overall performance. As a matter of fact, in neither of the Confidential Reports for the years 1978-79 and 1979-80 is there any remark that the Respondent was "otherwise fit for promotion" on the basis of overall performance. In the face of the adverse remarks and the type of adverse remarks in the Confidential Reports of the said two years, it is difficult to imagine that any reasonable employer would have found the respondent fit for promotion on overall assessment. I am, therefore, of the view that the industrial Court misdirected itself on both counts. 9. Both the counts on which the Industrial Court has held against the Respondent are clearly erroneous. The Confidential Reports amply show that the Respondent was not fit for promotion on consideration of overall performance during the material period. In my view, the Respondent did not fulfil the criterion prescribed by the proviso of rule (i) of G.O. No. 74 of 1974 and, therefore, he was not entitled to the benefit of the said G.O. No. 74. The complaint was, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 10. In my view, the Respondent did not fulfil the criterion prescribed by the proviso of rule (i) of G.O. No. 74 of 1974 and, therefore, he was not entitled to the benefit of the said G.O. No. 74. The complaint was, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 10. In the result, writ petition is allowed, rule is made absolute, impugned order of the Industrial Court is hereby quashed and set aside and Complaint (ULP) No. 8 of 1986 is dismissed. 11. However, there shall be no order as to costs.