vs s IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.4904 OF 2008 PETITION NO.4904 OF 2008 PETITION NO.4904 OF 2008 Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation ... Petitioner V/s. Prakash Sanas ... Respondent Mr.A.S. Rao for Petitioner Mr.A.B. Desai for Respondent CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J MHATRE, J MHATRE, J. DATED: AUGUST 25, 2008 AUGUST 25, 2008 AUGUST 25, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Respondent No.4 is deleted from the array of the respondents in the petition. . The petition challenges the order of the Industrial Court granting the respondent workman certain reliefs in the complaint filed under Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. The petitioners were directed to release the annual increment payable to the workman after completion of 1 year from 30.11.2000 and to pay him arrears of increment and other allowances admissible to his post. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector which is occupied by the respondent is not a sanctioned post and, therefore, the reliefs granted by the Industrial Court are unsustainable. The witness for : 2 : the petitioners Sandeep Pandurang Bhosale has been cross-examined. He is an assistant traffic superintendent/Depot Manager in the traffic department of the petitioners. He has admitted that exhibit C8 which has been filed before the Court indicates that there are 9 sanctioned posts of assistant traffic inspectors. These 9 traffic inspectors were appointed by issuing an advertisement in the newspapers and following the procedure for recruitment. In these circumstances, the Industrial Court has observed that since the respondent-workman is working in a sanctioned post, he is entitled to increments from the date he was recruited by following the proper procedure. In my view, there is no need to disturb the order of the Industrial Court which has been passed on the basis of evidence on record before it. 2. Petition is rejected. However, the learned advocate for the petitioner requests that the ad-interim relief granted in writ petition No.2585 of 2008 be continued for a period of four weeks from today. Accordingly, the ad-interim relief is continued for a period of four weeks from today.