VASUDEO N. KULKARNI AND ORS. Vs. CHIEF OFFICER, ICHALKARANJI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND DIRECTOR, MAHARASHTRA MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a complaint by Junior Engineers of Ichalkaranji Municipal Council, under section 28(1) read with item 9 of Sch. IV of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 on the ground that failure of Ichalkaranji Municipal Council to pay wages w.e.f. 1st April, 1981, as per Government resolution dated 16th April, 1984, is an unfair labour practice. Admittedly, respective Complainants are working with Respondent No. 1 Council as Overseers since prior to 16th April, 1984. Respondent No. 2 permitted conversion of designation of "Overseer" as "Junior Engineer", vide letter dated 28th October, 1988. Respondent No. 1 council then passed resolution dated 31st October, 1988 and then designated respective Complainants as Junior Engineers, vide letter dated 8th December, 1988. Government of Maharashtra fixed pay of Junior Engineers in the scale of Rs. 600 -950 with effect from 1st April, 1981, vide its resolution dated 16th April, 1984.

(2.) IT is case of the Complainants that they are designated as "Junior Engineer" as per letter dated 8th December, 1988 issued by Respondent No. 1. They, therefore are covered by Government resolution dated 16th April, 1984 and entitled to scale of Rs. 600 -950 with effect from 1st April, 1981. They then made an application in the year 1990 to Respondent No. 1 for paying wages with effect from 1st April, 1981, as per Government resolution dated 16th April, 1984. Respondent No. 1's City Engineer made a report to Respondent No. 1 that nature of work performed by the Junior Engineers working under Government is similar to the work performed by the Complainants and therefore, it is necessary to grant same scale to the Complainants. The City Engineer further recommended that a resolution be passed to that effect. Chief Officer of Respondent No. 1 accepted the recommendation. Consequently, Respondent No. 1 passed resolution No. 103 dated 21st June, 1990 according sanction to the Complainants for paying wages in the scale of Rs. 600 -950.

(3.) THE Complainants have also pleaded in the complaint the Respondent No. 1 Council requested vide its letter dated 15th September, 1990 to Respondent No. 2 for according sanction to grant scale of Rs. 600 -950 to the Complainants and Respondent. No. 2 has replied by letter dated 25th June, 1991 that said request is under consideration. But Respondent No. 2 has failed to accord sanction and thereby has continued as well as endorsed the unfair labour practice.