ORAL JUDGMENT :- The petitioner has challenged the order of the Industrial Court dated 23rd December 1992 dismissing his Complaint (ULP) No. 35 of 1986 filed under Items 4(1)(d) and (e) of Schedule II and Items 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act"). 2. The petitioner was employed since 1968 with the respondents as a permanent Conductor. According to the petitioner, since he was senior most in the waiting list of Conductors, he was asked to work as Junior Grade Clerk from time to time whenever there were leave vacancies with the respondents. Despite several applications to the respondents, the petitioner claims that he has not been appointed as permanent Junior Grade Clerk, though deserving. It appears that respondent No.1 appointed one Yelmali as Junior Grade Clerk instead of the petitioner although he was junior to the petitioner in the Conductors waiting list. Aggrieved by this, petitioner filed Complaint (ULP) No. 182 of 1982 under Items 4(c)(i)(a) of Schedule II and Items 5 and 6 of Schedule IV of the said Act. The Industrial Court by an order dated 29th December, 1983 held that the respondents were guilty of unfair labour practice under Item 6 of Schedule IV of the said Act for having given Yelmali the post of Junior Grade Clerk despite the petitioner being senior to him in the waiting list. 2-A. After the order of the Industrial Court dated 29th December, 1983, the respondents reverted Yelmali on 13th January, 1984 and promoted the petitioner to the said post and soon thereafter on 20th February, 1984 reverted the petitioner to the post of Conductor. Being aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed another Complaint, namely, Complaint (ULP) No.35 of 1986 under Items 4(1)(d) and (e) of Schedule II and Items 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the said Act. The main grievance of the petitioner in the said Complaint was that the three persons have been incorrectly promoted to the post of Junior Grade Clerk. The petitioner contended that he had a right to continue as a Junior Grade Clerk in view of the earlier order of the Industrial Court dated 29th December, 1983 and by reverting him the respondents have committed unfair labour practice. 3. The petitioner contended that he had a right to continue as a Junior Grade Clerk in view of the earlier order of the Industrial Court dated 29th December, 1983 and by reverting him the respondents have committed unfair labour practice. 3. The respondents filed their written statement in the said Complaint and contended that the petitioner was placed at Serial No.41 in the seniority list of Conductors. They also contended that the channel of promotion of Conductor was not to the post of Junior Grade Clerk. Realising that they had wrongly promoted the petitioner to the post of Junior grade Clerk, they had reverted him and promoted a suitable candidate to the said post and therefore, no unfair labour practice had been committed. 4. Mr. Kudle, learned Advocate for the petitioner, submitted that the Industrial Court has erred in rejecting the Complaint. He submitted that the petitioner had a right to continue in the post of Junior Grade Clerk by virtue of the earlier order of the Industrial Court dated 29th December, 1983 and, therefore, his reversion was bad in law. He also submitted that by treating three persons from the list of Conductors differently and by promoting them to the post of Junior Grade Clerks, the respondents have committed unfair labour practice under Item 5 of Schedule IV of the said Act. 5. Mr. Jamdar, learned Advocate for the respondents, submitted that the respondents had cured the vice which had crept in due to the promotion of Yelmali, by reverting him on 13th January, 1989. He submitted that once they have passed the order of reverting Yelmali in compliance with the order of the Industrial court, the unfair labour practice complained of ceased to exist. The petitioner had also been simultaneously promoted in his place in accordance with the order of the Industrial Court. Thereafter the petitioner had been reverted. He further submitted that out of the three persons against whom the petitioner had a grievance, Kiranalli was working on the post of Clerk-cum- Typist from 20th May, 1981 and had knowledge of English and Marathi typing which was a requisite for this post. He further submits that promotion was not on regular basis and was a stop gap arrangement. He further submitted that out of the three persons against whom the petitioner had a grievance, Kiranalli was working on the post of Clerk-cum- Typist from 20th May, 1981 and had knowledge of English and Marathi typing which was a requisite for this post. He further submits that promotion was not on regular basis and was a stop gap arrangement. Chincholi and Inamdar were promoted to the posts of Junior Grade Clerks from the grade of Traffic Inspector and, therefore, they could not be treated on par with the petitioner who was a Conductor. In any event, submits Mr. Jamdar, the channel of promotion from the post of conductor was not to Junior Grade Clerk. 6. Having heard the learned Advocates on both sides and on perusal of the order of the Industrial Court dated 23rd December, 1992, I do not find that there is any error of law calling for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The complaint has been filed under section 4(l)(d) and (e) which have no bearing on the present case. The pleadings in the complaint are extremely vague and sketchy. The Industrial Court has dealt with the cases of Kiranalli, Chincholi and Inamdar against whom the petitioner had a grievance. The Industrial Court has given cogent reasons for dismissing the complaint. I find no need to interfere with the findings of the Industrial Court. 10.Hence, Writ Petition dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. 11. Issuance of certified copy expedited. Petition dismissed.