JUDGMENT: 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties, the matter is taken for final hearing immediately. 2. The respondent filed a complaint under Section 28 with Item No.6 and 9 in Schedule IV to Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 before the Industrial court. According to him, the petitioner and some other persons had applied for the post of driver. He was interviewed for the said post but was given appointment as a Cleaner. He was holding driving licence for heavy vehicle since the year 1976. He was given appointment as a Cleaner on 14/7/1980. According to him, in 1982 again interviews were held for the post of driver and six persons were appointed. However, the petitioner was not given appointment as a driver. According to him, he was required to discharge the functions of driver but he was never confirmed to that post and was paid wages only as a Cleaner and thus there was unfair labour practice. The allegations were denied on behalf of the present petitioner. The Industrial court came to conclusion that the petitioner had indulged in unfair labour practice by not giving appointment to him as a driver and paying wages only as a Cleaner for long time. The Industrial court also declared that the plaintiff/respondent had a right of appointment or continuaion in service as a driver w.e.f. 25/8/1983 and he is also entitled to financial benefits in respect of same. This order has been challenged by the employer ñ Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd. In the present petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for both the parties have taken me through the detailed judgment passed by the learned Industrial Court as well as the evidence of the respondent himself before the Industrial Court. It is true that the respondents and some others had applied for the post of driver in 1979 and he also interviewed. However, none of them were selected for the post of driver and respondent and some others were given appointment as Cleaner or conductor w.e.f. 14th July, 1980 and accordingly the respondent joined the service as cleaner. Admittedly, in 1982 again advertisement was issued and the applications were called for the post of driver. However, none of them were selected for the post of driver and respondent and some others were given appointment as Cleaner or conductor w.e.f. 14th July, 1980 and accordingly the respondent joined the service as cleaner. Admittedly, in 1982 again advertisement was issued and the applications were called for the post of driver. The respondent had also applied and he was also interviewed but he was not selected for the post of driver. In that process, six persons from outside were given appointments as drivers and one of the staff members was also given appointment as a driver. The respondent admitted in his evidence that he was not selected or the post of driver in 1982 but according to him, he continued to work as a driver as one Shri Pethe Executive Engineer instructed him to join the duty. In the cross-examination he admitted that in order to gain experience, he had voluntarily undertook to drive the vehicle and he did not demand any pay of the driver from the respondent. 4. Admitted fact is that after 1983 when six persons were appointed, no fresh appointment of driver has been made by the petitioner at the time of last appointment made on the basis of interview held in 1982 the respondent was not selected for that post. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there were also no vacancy for the post of driver. In view of this, there was no occasion or justification for the respondent to work as driver on continuous basis. According to his own admission to gain experience he had voluntarily offered to drive the vehicle and did not demand any pay. In all probabilities this was because he wanted to have sufficient experience so that as and when next time any applications would be called, he could be selected for the post of driver. It is possible that because of the offer made by him, on some occasions, the Executive Engineer might have allowed him to drive the vehicle but that does not mean that the petitioner was regular taking the work of driver from him while paying him wages of Cleaner. 5. It is possible that because of the offer made by him, on some occasions, the Executive Engineer might have allowed him to drive the vehicle but that does not mean that the petitioner was regular taking the work of driver from him while paying him wages of Cleaner. 5. Under Item No.6 to the Schedule, it is unfair labour practice on the part of the employer to employ employees as badlies, casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years, with the object of depriving them to the status and privileges of permanent employees. In the present case, there is nothing to show that the respondent was made to work as a driver as a casual or temporary for years or for any long period to deprive him of the status and privileges of the driver on permanent basis. Admittedly, since 1980, he joined the services as a Cleaner or the conductor and he has been paid accordingly. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on two authorities before this curt. In Kisan Laxman Mane ..vs.. Director of Animal Husbandry, Pune and ors. (1997(1)CLR 51). The complainant was employed as a Majdoor and later on he was required to discharge the work as tractor driver from September, 1980 to February, 1986 contineously. However, he was paid wages as Mazdoor and not as tractor driver. In view of these circumstances, this court had directed that he should be paid wages of the tractor driver during the said period because he had discharged that work, with further direction that he be considered as a tractor driver. In Sakhaullah Darab Khan ..vs..Visvesvaraya Regional Collecte of Engineering, Nagpur and ors. (1999 (1) CLR 890), the petitioner was appointed as a Bio-chemist and he was holding qualification of Master's Degree in Bio-chemistry. He claimed pay scale of lecturer as he had discharged duties of lecturer. The court found that at least since the retirement of one Prof. Deshpande on 30/9/1992, the petitioner had worked as lecturer till his retirement. In view of this, this court held that the petitioner deserves to be granted scale of pay equivalent to that of lecturer with periodical increatment at least from the date on which he was officially called upon to discharge duties of lecturer on retirement of Prof.Deshpande. Deshpande on 30/9/1992, the petitioner had worked as lecturer till his retirement. In view of this, this court held that the petitioner deserves to be granted scale of pay equivalent to that of lecturer with periodical increatment at least from the date on which he was officially called upon to discharge duties of lecturer on retirement of Prof.Deshpande. From this, it is clear that the financial benefit was given to him because he was actually discharging the duties of lecturer from 1992 till his retirement. In my considered opinion both these authorities are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 7. The learned Industrial court observed in para no.9 that the complainant was holding driving licence and it was not declared that he was unqualified and was not holding any required qualification or was not successfully in interview. However, it is not sufficient that he was holding the driving licence. It is not necessary tat he should be declared as unqualified. The material fact is that even according to the complainant himself he was not selected for the post of driver even though he was interviewed for the same in the year 1979 and again in 1982. The learned Member of the Industrial court also observed that nothing had prevented the employer to offer wages equivalent to the wages of driver when the work of driver was extracted from the complainant. In fact, there is no basis for these observation particularly when the complainant had unequivocally admitted in the cross-examination that he had voluntarily offered his service just to gain experience as a driver and without any wages for that purpose. Merely because on his request some times he was allowed to drive the vehicle, it does not mean that the work of driver was being taken on continuous basis for long time. Therefore he was not entitled to get the wages of the driver. 7. In view of the facts and circumstances noted above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Industrial Court is hereby set aside and it is declared that the complainant/respondent has failed to prove any unfair labour practice under Item No.6 of Schedule IV of the said Act.