JUDGMENT :- By the instant petition, the petitioner Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation challenges the order dated 7/8-121995 passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Nagpur in Complaint (ULP) No.142/1994 whereby Industrial Court has quashed the order of reversion passed against the respondent an 10-2-1993 and directed the petitioner to continue the complainant/respondent as Traffic Controller with immediate effect and pay him arrears of salary. The facts giving rise to the controversy in the instant petition are summarised as follows. 2. The respondent was appointed as Conductor by the petitioner Corporation with effect from 1-11-1970. The next promotional past to which respondent was entitled to be promoted was that of the Traffic Controller, for which according to Clause 39 of the General Standing Order 503, it was necessary that the respondent Conductor aught to have passed the departmental examination far being promoted to the post of Traffic Controller. The departmental examination was held in the year 1983 wherein respondent appeared and was declared to have been passed. The departmental examination was, however, challenged by certain Union be fare the Industrial Court and· the Industrial Court by order dated 17-3-1989 held that the departmental examination was not conducted in a fair and proper manner arid, therefore, examination was liable to be cancelled. It is noteworthy that the respondent came to be promoted on the post of Traffic Controller by order dated 26-4-1984 during pendency of cases bearing Nos.130/1983 and 146/1983 challenging the departmental examination before the Industrial Court, however, subjecting promotion to the decision of the cases mentioned hereinabove. Thus, respondent was promoted on the post of Traffic Controller by order dated 26-4-1984 as he had passed the departmental examination which later on came to be declared as cancelled as it was not conducted in a fair and proper manner. The respondent continued, on the post of Traffic Controller till decision of the Industrial Court dated 17-3-1989 holding that departmental examination was not fair and proper. After decision of the Industrial Court in Case Nos.130/1983 and 146/1983, the respondent came to be reverted on the post of Conductor. The respondent continued, on the post of Traffic Controller till decision of the Industrial Court dated 17-3-1989 holding that departmental examination was not fair and proper. After decision of the Industrial Court in Case Nos.130/1983 and 146/1983, the respondent came to be reverted on the post of Conductor. It is the case of the petitioner Corporation that since several posts of Traffic Controller were lying vacant and there were no regular promotions on the posts of Traffic Controller, the respondent as well as certain other Conductors were temporarily promoted on the posts of Traffic Controller after decision of the Industrial Court on 17-3-1989. Thus, by an office order, reference number of which is 576/1989, the respondent came to be reverted on the post of Conductor and by very same order was again promoted temporarily on the vacant post from 4-5-1989. Though respondent was temporarily promoted on the post of Traffic Controller again by order dated 3-5-1989 bearing Reference No.576/1989, the respondent came to be reverted after a lapse of about one year in the year 1990. The respondent challenged the reversion order before the Industrial Court, which forms the subject matter of another proceedings, which is pending before the Industrial Court. Thereafter, by order dated 9-3-1992, the reference number of which is 275/1995, the respondent came to be promoted temporarily on the post of Traffic Controller against the vacancy reserved for backward class candidate. The order, however, mentioned that temporary promotion would be continued till the posts were filled up by regularly promoted candidates or order altering the arrangement was issued. It is not in dispute that order dated 9-3-1992 is the last order by which respondent came to be promoted temporarily on the post of Traffic Controller. The respondent came to be reverted by order dated 10-2-1993 on the post of Conductor and it is this reversion order, which ... was challenged by the respondent before the Industrial Court in Complainant (ULP) No. 142/ 1994. 3. It is necessary to point out at this juncture that the departmental examinations were once again conducted by the petitioner Corporation in the year 1990. The respondent appeared in the departmental examination. These departmental examinations were also challenged before the Industrial Court in the year 1990 and results of the departmental examinations were not declared during pendency of the proceedings before the Industrial Court. The respondent appeared in the departmental examination. These departmental examinations were also challenged before the Industrial Court in the year 1990 and results of the departmental examinations were not declared during pendency of the proceedings before the Industrial Court. On 9-2-1993, the Industrial Court passed an order holding that departmental examinations conducted in the year 1990 were held in a fair and proper manner and results of the departmental examinations could be declared. The results of the departmental examination came to be declared on 9-2-1993. On declaration of 'results, it was revealed that respondent had failed at the departmental examination. It is the case of the Petition Corporation that it is because of failure of the respondent at the departmental examination that the order dated 10-2-1996 was passed and he was reverted on the post of Conductor. The case of the petitioner Corporation is that according to provisions of the General Order, it was necessary for the Conductor to pass departmental examination for seeking promotion to the next promotional post of Traffic Controller and respondent along with several other Conductors was temporarily promoted on the post of Traffic Controller till results of the departmental examination were declared in the year 1993. Since respondent had failed in the departmental examination, the results of which were declared on 9-2-1993, the petitioner Corporation had no option but to revert the respondent on the post of Conductor. 4. In the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant before the Industrial Court under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, the respondent challenged the order of reversion on the ground that last promotion order by which respondent came to be promoted with effect from 9-3-1992 was not subject to decision of the Industrial Court in the proceedings in which departmental examinations of the year 1990 were challenged. The complainant canvassed before the Industrial Court that order of reversion, which was challenged before the Industrial Court and by which the respondent came to be reverted, did not refer to the reference number of the last promotion order and in fact, referred to the Divisional Establishment Order Nos.576/1989 and 577/1989. The complainant canvassed before the Industrial Court that order of reversion, which was challenged before the Industrial Court and by which the respondent came to be reverted, did not refer to the reference number of the last promotion order and in fact, referred to the Divisional Establishment Order Nos.576/1989 and 577/1989. The Industrial Court after hearing the parties and considering the evidence on record by order dated 7/8-12-1995 held that order dated 10-2-1993 reverting the respondent to the post of Conductor was illegal and liable to be quashed and set aside and petitioner was directed to continue the respondent as Traffic Controller. The Industrial Court quashed the order of reversion mainly on two grounds. According to the Industrial Court, order promoting the respondent on the post of Traffic Controller was not subject to result of the decision by the Industrial Court in a case challenging the departmental examination held in the year 1990. The second contentions advanced by the complainant/respondent that reversion order did not refer to the departmental reference number of the last promotion order while reverting the respondent and hence, in fact the last promotion order could not be said to have been cancelled and respondent could not have been reverted on the post of Conductor by referring to two other reference numbers, namely, 576/1989 and 577/1989 was also upheld. The Industrial Court further held that as per Clause 51 of the General Standing Order 503, the Departmental could relax certain conditions in the interest of justice and as per Clause 53 of the General Standing Order 503, an employee could be considered for promotion to higher post, even if the failed in the departmental examination provided no qualified candidate were available. The Industrial Court, therefore, applied the provisions of Clauses 51 and 53 of the General Standing Order 503 to grant ben6fit to the complainant/respondent and to quash reversion order dated 10-2-1993. 5. The Industrial Court, therefore, applied the provisions of Clauses 51 and 53 of the General Standing Order 503 to grant ben6fit to the complainant/respondent and to quash reversion order dated 10-2-1993. 5. Shri. Wankhede, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Corporation, canvassed that order passed by the Industrial Court is clearly illegal as the Industrial Court failed to consider the fact that the post of Traffic Controller was a promotional post and respondent employee had been promoted, to the post of Traffic Controller on ad hoc basis and temporarily by last order of promotion dated 9-3-1992 and had finally failed at the departmental examination, which was conducted in the year 1990 and results of which were declared on 9-2-1993. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner then canvassed that the respondent did not have a right to promotional post unless he passed at the departmental examination, the results of which were declared on 9-2-1993 and he was promoted temporarily on the post of Traffic Controller till candidates, who passed at the departmental examination were promoted on the post or till the order altering arrangement was issued. Shri. Wankhede submitted that the last promotion order temporarily promoting the respondent clearly showed that the respondent was promoted temporarily till regular posting was made on the post of Traffic Controller and/or order altering arrangement was issued and the Industrial Court failed to consider this aspect of the matter by ignoring the rider, which was provided in the promotional order dated 9-3-1992. It was then submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Industrial Court gave undue weightage to the mention of wrong reference number in the order of reversion dated 10-2-1993 to quash and set aside the order of reversion as it was nobody's case that there was any order, which was passed subsequent to the order dated 9-3-1992 whereby respondent came to be temporarily promoted on the post of Traffic Controller. 7. Shri. Wankhede lastly submitted that reliance by the Industrial Court on Clauses 51 and 53 of the General Standing Order 503 was clearly misplaced as under Clause 51 the condition of passing of departmental examination could be relaxed in a very special case and in the interest of administration of Corporation and it was not the case of the complainant/respondent that such a condition had been relaxed in his case. Similarly, it was pointed out that Clause 53 of the General Standing Orders 503 also did not apply because under Clause 53 the Conductor could have been promoted on the post of Traffic Controller, if no other candidate had qualified or passed at the departmental examination and in the instant case, though the respondent had failed at the departmental examination, results of which were declared on 9-2-1993, certain other candidates had been declared successful. Thus, it was pointed out that reference to the Clauses 51 and 53 of the General Standing Order 503 was unwarranted and Industrial Court committed an error in referring to those Clauses while extending benefit to the respondent. 8. Shri. Mohokar, learned counsel for the respondent, supported the order of the Industrial Court and canvassed that the Industrial Court has reached the finding of fact. on both the issues and, therefore, interference with the order of Industrial Court in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is unwarranted. Shri. Mohokar relied on judgments in Cricket Club of India and another Vs. Baljit Shyam (Mrs.) and another (1998(1) CLR 570); Bhagwati Prasad Vs. Delhi State Mineral, Development Corporation (1990 LLJ (n 320); Rajalekshmi Vs. State of Kerala (1992(1) CLR 673) and D. K. Sabni Vs. Managing Director Manganese Ore India Ltd. and others (1993 LLJ (1) 233) to fortify his submissions. 9. I have gone through the order of the Industrial Court and two orders temporarily promoting the respondent on the post of Traffic Controller as well as the evidence adduced by the parties before the Industrial Court. After going through the order of the Industrial Court, it is clear that Industrial Court did not advert its mind to the note, which was incorporated in the last promotion order dated 9-3-1992, temporarily promoting the respondent on the post of Traffic Controller. The Industrial Court failed to consider that promottees were notified that the temporary promotion would be continued till regular postings were made on the post of Traffic Controller or order altering arrangement was issued. The General Standing Order 503 clearly stipulates that to seek a promotion to the post of Traffic Controller it is necessary for the Conductor to have passed departmental examination. In the instant case, the first departmental examination was conducted in the year 1983 and the respondent had been declared successful in the examination. The General Standing Order 503 clearly stipulates that to seek a promotion to the post of Traffic Controller it is necessary for the Conductor to have passed departmental examination. In the instant case, the first departmental examination was conducted in the year 1983 and the respondent had been declared successful in the examination. However, unfortunately the said examination was held to be cancelled because it was not conducted fairly and properly and, therefore, success of the respondent at the said examination was of no avail to the respondent. Since petitioner Corporation had no other option, it temporarily promoted respondent as well as several other employees on the posts of Traffic Controller from time to time as departmental examination, which was held in the year 1983, came to be cancelled by the order of the Industrial Court on 17-3-1989. Therefore, immediately departmental examinations came to be conducted in the year 1990, results of which were declared on 9-2-1993. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Industrial Court challenging the departmental examinations of the year 1990, the petitioner Corporation again appointed the respondent as well as certain other Conductors temporarily on the posts of Traffic Controller till regularly promoted candidates, who had passed at the departmental examination were appointed on those posts. Thus, temporary promotion of the respondent as well as other candidates was merely a stop gap arrangement as can be depicted from the orders of temporary promotion, which were issued in the years 1989 and 1992. 10. The Industrial Court further failed to consider that it was not the case of .the respondent/complainant that the Corporation had relaxed the condition of passing the departmental examination in case of the respondent and hence, Clause 51 of the General Standing Order 503 did not have any application to the facts of the case. The Industrial Court further committed an error in referring to Clause 53 of the General Standing. Order 503, which also had no application to the facts of the case as the Corporation was empowered to promote a candidate, who had failed at the Departmental examination only if no other candidate had been declared successful at the departmental examination. The Industrial Court further committed an error in referring to Clause 53 of the General Standing. Order 503, which also had no application to the facts of the case as the Corporation was empowered to promote a candidate, who had failed at the Departmental examination only if no other candidate had been declared successful at the departmental examination. The Industrial Court, therefore, failed to consider that it was not the case of the respondent that there was no other suitable candidate, who had passed the departmental examination and, therefore, he could be promoted to the post of Traffic Controller. Reliance placed by the Industrial Court on Clauses 51 and 53 of the General Standing Order 503 was a misnomer as Clauses 51 and 53 clearly did not apply to the facts of the case and it was not the case of the respondent/complainant that either the Corporation had relaxed the condition of passing the departmental examination in respect of respondent or that there was no other suitable candidate, who had passed the departmental examination, the results of which were declared on 9-2-1993. The Industrial Court erroneously came to the conclusion that order dated 9-3-1992 temporarily promoting the respondent was not cancelled as the order of reversion dated 10-2-1993 referred to certain other Divisional Establishment Order Nos.576/ 89 and 577/89 when the order temporarily promoting the respondent bore Reference No.275/92. The Industrial Court committed an error in giving undue weightage to the reference numbers of the order promoting the respondent when it was nobody's case that there was any other order passed subsequent to order dated 9-3-1992 promoting respondent on the post of Traffic Controller. It is an admitted position that for promotion to the post of Traffic Controller, a Conductor had to be declared successful at the departmental examination, results of which were declared on 9-2-1993. The petitioner Corporation was, therefore, justified in reverting the respondent on the post of Conductor in view of declaration of results on 9-2-1993 and in view of the fact that respondent had not been declared successful ·in the said examination. The Industrial Court, therefore, committed an error in first relying on Clauses 51 and 53 of the General Standing Order 503 to extend benefit to the respondent and by further holding that the last order of promotion dated 9- 3-1992 was never cancelled and, therefore, order of reversion dated 10-2-1993 was illegal. The Industrial Court, therefore, committed an error in first relying on Clauses 51 and 53 of the General Standing Order 503 to extend benefit to the respondent and by further holding that the last order of promotion dated 9- 3-1992 was never cancelled and, therefore, order of reversion dated 10-2-1993 was illegal. Thus, it is more than clear that the respondent had no right to hold the post of Traffic Controller when he was declared unsuccessful in the depm1mental examination and as he was promoted to the post of Traffic Controller temporarily and as a stop gap arrangement till regular promote's were appointed on the said posts. The judgment in Cricket Club of India and another Vs. Balijit Shyam (Mrs.) and another (1998(1) CLR 570) on which respondent relied is not applicable to the facts of the case. The judgment in Bhagwati Prasad Vs. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation (1990 LLJ(1) 320) deals with the re-question of regularisation of daily rated worker and is clearly distinguishable on facts and would be of no assistance to the respondent. Reliance on the judgment in Rajalekshmi Vs. State of Kerala (1992(1) CLR 673) is also misplaced as the petitioner therein was promoted to the post of First Grade Executive "Officer in clear vacancy and had been holding that post for a period of ten years. The judgment in D. K. Sahni Vs. Managing Director, Mangenese Ore India Ltd. and others (1993 LLJ(1) 233) on which Shri. Mohokar relied for substantiating his case is also of no help to the respondent as in that case the appellant therein was not eligible at the time of initial promotion, but immediately after a period of one year, he was qualified to hold the post and it was held by the Supreme Court that reversion of the appellant therein after a period of ten years on the ground that he was not eligible to be appointed on the promotional post at the initial stage was not proper. Thus, the judgment in the case of D. K. Sahni (cited supra) is distinguishable on facts and is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. 11. Thus, the judgment in the case of D. K. Sahni (cited supra) is distinguishable on facts and is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. 11. At this juncture it is pointed out by Shri. Wankhede learned Counsel for the petitioner, that at the relevant time, i.e. in the year 1993, the respondent had completed 49 years of age and at the time of hearing of this petition, the respondent is already superannuated. During pendency of this petition, the impugned order passed by the Industrial Court was stayed and, therefore, respondent worked on the reverted post during pendency of the petition. 12. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the order dated 7/8-12-1995 passed by the Industrial Court, Nagpur in Complaint (ULP) No.142/1994 is hereby quashed and set aside. The petition, therefore, succeeds. 13. The rule is made absolute in the above terms. However, in the facts of the case, -there will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.