JUDGMENT - R.J. KOCHAR, J.:---The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Pune passed on 30th April, 1983 dismissing his complaint of unfair labour practice filed by him against the respondent Corporation to challenge his supersession in the matter of promotion from the post of conductor to the post of Assistant Time Keeper. His grievance in the said complaint was that though he was senior and was due for promotion in the year 1988, the respondent Nos. 2 to 8 though junior to him were promoted. His grievance also appears to be that he was a trade union activist and therefore, he was deliberately victimised and was not given promotion. The respondent Corporation denied the said allegations by filing its written statement before the Industrial Court. It is significant to note that though Items 4(a), (d) and (e) of Schedule II and Items 5 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU PULP Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were invoked they have not been pressed before the Industrial Court and according to me, the Industrial Court has also rightly observed that none of these items have application in the present case. At the most, the complaint could be considered under item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act. The Industrial Court has considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and has negatived all the contentions raised by the petitioner in respect of victimisation and unfair labour practice. It is pertinent to note that though the petitioner has prayed that he was victimised being the Vice President of the Union it was brought on record that when he was superseded on 11-11-1987 the union which he claimed to represent was not in existence at all and that it came in ring thereafter. The case of the petitioner that he was victimised thus gets totally shut. The allegations of favouritism and victimisation and mala fides have no substance as there is absolutely no evidence or material to give meaning to these terms used by the learned Advocate for the petitioner. The case of the petitioner that he was victimised thus gets totally shut. The allegations of favouritism and victimisation and mala fides have no substance as there is absolutely no evidence or material to give meaning to these terms used by the learned Advocate for the petitioner. 2.Shri Ketkar, the learned Advocate for the respondent, however pointed out that under the rules if there is any penalty imposed on any employee, in that case, for the next two years he is not considered for promotion and after the expiry of the period of two years, the rules permit the said employee eligible for consideration for promotion. In the present case, Shri Ketkar has pointed out that on 11-11-1987 there was a penalty imposed on the petitioner by way of reduction of his basic pay from Rs. 360/- per month to Rs. 324/- per month and therefore upto 1989 he was not eligible to be considered for promotion to a higher post. Such promotions were considered on 25-11-1988 and the respondent Nos. 2 to 8 who were found eligible were promoted in accordance with the rules. On that date since the petitioner was under punishment period he was not eligible to be considered. Shri Ketkar has further pointed out that on 2-3-1991, there was another punishment imposed on the petitioner of reduction in basic pay and therefore, for the next two years i.e. upto 1993 he was not considered for promotion. The petitioner had challenged the said order of penalty before the Industrial Court by filing complaint ULP No. 111 of 1991 but his complaint was dismissed by the Industrial Court. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Industrial Court, he has approached this Court by filing writ petition which is said to be pending. Shri Ketkar has also pointed out that from 2-3-1991 for a period of two years he was not considered for promotion. However, since the said period of two years expired in 1993 he was given promotion to the post of Assistant Time Keeper in the year 1993. This fact is not disputed by the petitioner. Shri Ketkar further submits that the Corporation has no axe to grind against the petitioner and there is absolutely no reason for the Corporation to not to permit him or consider him for promotion. This fact is not disputed by the petitioner. Shri Ketkar further submits that the Corporation has no axe to grind against the petitioner and there is absolutely no reason for the Corporation to not to permit him or consider him for promotion. The very fact that in the year 1993 the petitioner was given promotion reflects the bona fides of the Corporation. Shri Ketkar has therefore, submitted that there was absolutely no case of unfair labour practice on the part of the respondent Corporation. Under the rule if an employee is under punishment period his case is not considered and accordingly the case of petitioner was not considered for promotion upto 1993. 3.There is absolutely no reason to disagree with the findings recorded by the Industrial Court and also with the submissions of Shri Ketkar on behalf of respondent Corporation. According to me, there are no mala fides or malice on the part of the Corporation in not giving promotion to the petitioner in the year 1988 as he was already under the punishment period. Another missing link is explained by Shri Ketkar that on 28-3-1990 the petitioner was punished by reversion from the permanent post of conductor to Badli post of conductor, and therefore after the expiry of punishment period from 1987 he was not considered as he was again under punishment. It appears that this order of reversion was set aside and thereafter he was restored as permanent conductor. As I have already stated that the petitioner was again punished on 2-3-1991 and therefore his punishment period expired in the year 1993 when he was given his due promotion. Considering over all facts and the circumstances there is absolutely no reason to interfere with the order of Industrial Court dismissing petitioner's complaint. There is absolutely no merit in the petition and hence it fails. Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No costs. Petition dismissed. -----