1 wp5390-5391-11.doc ttm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5390 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra and Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. Shri Sabhaji R. Yadav .. Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5391 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra and Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. Shri Ankush R. Mali .. Respondent Mr.P.G.Sawant ‘B’ Panel for the petitioners Mr.M.B.Gawade for the respondents CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATE: 19th JULY, 2011 PC: 1. By this petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners original respondents challenge the common judgment dt. 2.5.2009 passed 2 wp5390-5391-11.doc by learned Member, Labour Court in complaint (ULP) No.252 of 2006 and 253 of 2006 quashing and setting aside the order dt.10.03.2006 issued by the petitioners for recovery of excess paid salary to the respondent and directing the petitioners to pay salary to the respondent in the pay scale of Rs.4000 to Rs. 6000/- 2. The petitioners had reduced pay scale which they were paying to the respondents workmen without following the proper procedure. The Industrial Court has found that the contention raised by the petitioners that the respondent workmen were not entitled to the Grade Rs.4000-6000 but are to be fitted in the Grade of Rs.3050-4590 cannot be accepted. The Industrial Court has rightly concluded that unless proper procedure for withdrawing the pay scale granted to the workman was followed, his pay could not be reduced. Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioner Government failed to follow due procedure for reducing the pay scale of respondent. 3. The learned counsel for respondent pointed out that similar facts were involved in Writ Petition No.7401 of 3 wp5390-5391-11.doc 2007 State of Maharashta and Ors. vs. Ravindra Balkrishna Kawle which was dismissed by this court (Coram: Smt.Nishita Mhatre, J.) on 24.9.2007. The learned A.G.P. is not in a position to make a statement that they preferred any further appeal against the said order dt.24.9.2007 in Writ Petition No.7401 of 2007. 4. The facts and the law involved herein being the same as were in the decision of this court mentioned above, both these petitions are dismissed. 5. No order as to costs. (K.K.TATED,J.)