PIMPRI CHINCHWAD MUNICIPAL TRANSPORT Vs. GANESH GOVIND GOLAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition was placed before me for hearing on Civil Application No. 971 of 2008 filed by the original respondents in Writ Petition No.8101 of 2007 with a prayer to vacate the interim order dated 12/3/2008 passed in the said petition. The petitioner-establishment filed its reply opposing the application and as agreed between the parties and with their consent, the petition was finally heard.

(2.) The Writ Petition is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 30/8/2007 rendered by the Industrial Court at Pune thereby allowing Complaint (ULP) No. 104 of 2006. The said complaint was filed by 46 employees in Clerical cadre (Class-III) who have been in the employment of the petitioner-establishment from November, 1990. The petitioner-establishment is an undertaking of the Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation and it had, at the relevant time, about 1000 employees on its roll in different categories. The salary and the other benefits of the employees are as per the Pay Commission recommendations as applicable to the State Government. As per the Government Resolution dated 8/6/1995 issued by the State Government, the employees in Class-III and IV were granted the benefit of promotion on completion of 12 years of regular service so as to deal with the stagnation. The Selection Committee constituted by the Corporation by its decision dated 19/11/2003 approved the promotion to be given to the complainants. The said decision was put up before the Transport Committee on 22/1/2004 and it was approved. The complainants were placed in the payscale of Rs.1400-40-1800-EB-50-2300 with effect from November, 2002 as per the decision dated 7/2/2004. The arrears from November, 2002 to March, 2004 were also granted to them. The complainants alleged that from the month of October, 2005, without any notice to the complainants, the said promotion granted from November, 2002 was unilaterally withdrawn. It appears the Government of Maharashtra issued a Circular on 3/10/2005 and as per the Corporation this Circular directed that the employees of the petitioner-establishment were not eligible for any arrears and their payscale as per the settlement dated 1/4/1997 were approved by the State Government under Section 346(2)(a) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. Accordingly, the petitioner-establishment passed a Resolution on 13/10/2005 and issued an order on 10/11/2005. As per the said order, as per the payscale set out in the settlement dated 1/4/1997 the complainants were eligible for the payscale of Rs.950-200-1150-EB-25-1500 (unrevised) and Rs. 3250 - 75 - 4000 - 80-4800-85-5225-90-5675-95-8715 (revised). Consequently, the benefit of higher payscale of Rs.1400-40-1800-EB-50-2300 (unrevised) and Rs. 4100 - 100-5100-105-6150- 110 - 6700 - 115-7275-120-10395 (revised) was withdrawn. As a result, there was a reduction in the monthly salary of the complainants. The complainants alleged that the employer-establishment was guilty of unfair labour practice under Items 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 in their Complaint (ULP) No. 104 of 104 of 2006. They had also filed an application for interim relief under Section 30(2) of the said Act and on 20/10/2006 the said application was allowed in terms of the following reliefs:- "The respondents are directed to give the payscale of Rs.4100-100-5100-105- 6150-110-6700-115-7275-120-10395 from the date of order till the disposal of complaint." The said order was challenged before this court in Writ Petition No. 7702 of 2006 and it was rejected summarily on 13/2/2007.

(3.) After considering the evidence as adduced by the respective parties, the complaint came to be finally decided by the impugned Judgment and Order and while holding that the employer-establishment had engaged in acts of unfair labour practice within the meaning of Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971, the Industrial Court gave the following directions:-