1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 641 OF 2010 (Ramesh K. Giri vs. M.S.R.T.C., Nagpur) and WRIT PETITION NO. 1557 OF 2010 (Shrawan Shyamlal Khirad vs. M.S.R.T.C., Nagpur) with WRIT PETITION NO. 1268 OF 2010 (Abdul J. Durani vs. M.S.R.T.C., Nagpur) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. APRIL 15, 2010. With consent of Shri Jagdale, learned counsel for the petitioners and S/Shri Charpe and Wankhede, learned counsel for the respondent in respective writ petitions, the matters are taken up. At the request of parties, the matters are also being disposed of as controversy is concluded by Full Bench of this Court vide its judgment in the case of M.S.R.T.C. vs. Premlal s/o Khatri Gajbhiye & Ors., reported at 2003 II CLR 387 and judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra State Transport Corporation vs. Premlal, reported at 2007 II CLR 501, upholding that decision. Because of the objection of delay and laches raised by respective counsel for the respondent, Shri Jagdale, learned counsel at the threshold states that employees should be given the benefit from the date of filing of writ petition and benefit for earlier period need 2 not be extended to them. He states that he has accordingly obtained instructions from the respective petitioners. Shri Charpe, learned counsel points out that in Writ Petition No. 614 of 2010, the challenge is to the judgment of the Industrial Court delivered in 12 ULP Complaints on 25.06.1997, thereby the benefit of Clause 49 of 1956 Settlement was held not available to the complainants. He further states that 1997 judgment of Industrial Court is assailed in Writ Petition No. 641 of 2010 which has been filed on 08.01.2010. Shri Wankhede, learned counsel points out that in Writ Petition No. 1557 of 2010, the common judgment delivered by the Industrial Court in 20 cases on 29.09.2004 has been assailed. In Writ Petition No. 1268 of 2010, again same judgment has been assailed and these writ petitions are filed on 04.03.2010. Shri Jagdale, learned counsel has pointed out that in the impugned judgment in Writ Petition Nos. 1557/2010 and 1268 of 2010, the learned Member of Industrial Court has given liberty to the complainants to approach again as the controversy was then pending before larger Bench. He states that after larger Bench decided the matter, the controversy was before the Hon'ble Apex Court and after the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the matters have been filed. The fact show that in the controversy before larger Bench, the employer was party, the larger Bench 3 decided against the employer and employer then approached the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition and the Special Leave Petition decided in the year 2007. In view of this decision, approach to this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 1557 and 1268 of 2010 cannot be said to be belated. In any case, the petitioners therein have fairly stated that they are not claiming any arrears for the period prior to 04.03.2010. In Writ Petition No. 614 of 2010, though the challenge is to the order passed in 1997, the petitioner has continued in service and even today he is in service. The larger Bench as also the Hon'ble Apex Court has found that Clause 49 of 1956 of Settlement has not been replaced and still holds the field. In view of this position, the Courts have also found that failure to extend benefit thereof to the employees constitutes a continuous cause of action. The objection on limitation, therefore, came to be rejected by this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court. In this situation, when the petitioner has still not received that benefit and Clause 49 is holding the field, it is clear that filing of writ petition on 08.01.2010 cannot be labeled as belated and suffering from laches. There again, the petitioner has made statement that he should be given benefit from 08.01.2010 and he is not claiming any arrears prior thereto. In view of this situation and statement made by the petitioners, objections raised by Shri Wankhede 4 and Charpe, learned counsel, about maintainability of writ petitions are misconceived. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Maharashtra State Transport Corporation vs. Premlal (supra), the petitioners are entitled to benefits of Clause 49 of 1956 Settlement after completion of 180 days of their service. The said benefits, therefore, need to be calculated. Accordingly, the respondent – employer is directed to calculate notionally said benefit, payable to respective petitioners, upon their completion of 180 days of service and to fix them appropriately on 08.01.2010 and 04.03.2010 respectively, i.e. the dates on which writ petitions have been filed before this Court. The petitioners are not entitled to any arrears and any amount for the period prior to 04.03.2010 and 08.01.2010 on account of such fixation. Only, their salary / wages shall be revised. Thus, they will actually draw increased wages from said dates effective from 08.01.2010 and 04.03.2010. Writ Petitions are partly allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.