1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.176 of 2008 Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and ors. Petitioners Vs. Mumbai Mahanagarpalika Karmachari Mahasangh & anr. Respondents Mr.A.Y.Sakhare, Senior Counsel with Mr.A.J. Bhor i/b. Shri S.H.Ujainwalla & Shri R.A.Malandkar for petitioners. Mr.Prakash Devdas for respondent no.1. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE, J. February 11, 2008 P.C. 1. Heard Mr.Sakhare, the learned Senior Counsel with Mr.Bhor and Mr.Malandkar for the petitioners. Mr.Devdas appears for the respondent no.1. Municipal Mazdoor Union which was the Complainant No.2 in Complaint (ULP) No.739 of 2000 be added as an additional respondent forthwith. 2 2. The petitioner - Municipal Corporation is aggrieved by the judgment and order rendered by the Industrial Court on 15/11/2007 in Complaint (ULP) No.739 of 2000. The Industrial Court has held that the Corporation is guilty of engaging in unfair labour practice by not implementing the agreement dated 22/7/1986. 3. The agreement dated 22/7/1986 was signed between the Corporation as well as Mumbai Mahapalika Karmachari Mahasangh and Brihan Mumbai Mahapalika Shikshak Sabha. The said agreement was for carrying out job analysis and prepare job descriptions for all the jobs (not persons) under the Municipal Corporation. The other clauses of the said agreement dealt with methodology to undertake this job descriptions, job evaluation plans and implementation as well as full investigations. It was agreed between the parties that an apex panel would be formed to, (a) to evolve major guidelines for the study, (b) frame the methodology and to modify it if necessary, during the course of study, 3 (c) finalize job descriptions, (d) review, modify and finalize evaluation plans, (e) correlate final evaluation with prevailing wage scales of BMC to evolve suitable classes and finalise classification, (f) prepare guidelines for implementation, (g) resolve differences, disputes arising in the course of study or refer the same to the arbitration. . The Apex Panel was to consist of the representatives of the Municipal Mazdoor Union and its allied Unions, the Mahasangh and the Municipal Administration as well as the National Productivity Council or any other consultants appointed by the Municipal Administration. Prayer (3) in the complaint filed by the Unions read as under: "The Respondents be directed to implement the 4 agreement dated 22.6.1986 Annexure ‘A’ by implementing the reclassification of jobs where no dispute between Unions and the respondent No.1 such as Clerk-cum-Storekeeper-cum Accountant, Coordinator, Female Field Workers, Meter Inspectors etc. as agreed upon in the agreements Annexure ‘A-1’ with retrospective effect from the date mentioned in the agreement." 4. Before the Industrial Court both the parties had brought on record the concerned documents. UW 1 - Shashikant Waman Kochikar was examined as the sole witness in support of the complaint. Whereas the Corporation examined Shri Mohan Shankar Phanse, Chief Labour Officer in support of the Corporation’s case. The agreement dated 22/7/1986 was placed on record at Exhibit U-25 by the Union and at Exhibit C-17 by the Corporation. The Industrial Court noted that after the said Agreement, the Corporation and the Unions had signed four more agreements in the years 1990, 1993, 1996 and 2001. The complaint was filed on 11/8/2000 and thereafter the pay revision committee had submitted its report at Exhibit C-21 and the 5 agreement dated 23/10/2001 had been considered in the said report. The Unions had also relied upon the awards passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Reference (IT) Nos.115/1981, 113/1985, 134/1985 and 104/1989. After considering the documentary as well as oral evidence the Industrial Court noted that the agreement dated 22/7/1986 was all the time kept alive and the issue of job evaluation was a subject matter of all the agreements and it was to be undertaken and completed by the Corporation. 5. However, the Corporation had taken a defence that through some consultants, studies were undertaken and those studies indicated that the issue of job evaluation had become redundant and more so because of the computerization undertaken by the Corporation. One such consultant was Mr.M.K.Bobde and his reports were sought to be proved through the oral depositions of Mr.Phanse. In his cross-examination Mr.Phanse admitted that he was the ex officio Secretary of the Apex Panel which was the main body created by the agreement dated 22/7/1986 to consider all the aspects of job evaluation study including resolution of disputes. Mr.Phanse admitted in his cross-examination further that the report of 6 the Mr.Bobde was never placed before the Apex Panel and the Apex Panel was never constituted or it was not in existence when the report was submitted. The Corporation also admitted that there were no tri-partite or bi-partite discussions as to whether the issue of job evaluation had become redundant as per the report submitted by Mr. Bobde (Exh.27). The Apex Panel was a body in the settlement dated 22/7/1986 and the said body was not aware of any such report. The Industrial Court was, therefore, justified in holding that the Corporation was guilty of non implementation of the settlement dated 22/7/1986 and a declaration followed. 6. I have perused the R. & P. and the oral depositions of both the witnesses as well as the documentary evidence brought on record by the respective parties. I am satisfied that the findings recorded by the Industrial Court cannot be termed as perverse or erroneous so as to call for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. The petition must, therefore, fail at the threshold and the same is hereby rejected summarily. . The relief granted by the Industrial Court is 7 to be considered and limited only to the extent of prayer clause 3 as reproduced hereinabove. Even otherwise none of the parties are prevented from acting upon the study reports, as per the settlment dated 22/7/1986. (B.H.MARL