1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5013 OF 2009 Dharangaon Municipal Council, Dharangaon, Dist-Jalgaon, Through its Chief Officer. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS Murlidhar s/o Atmaram Wani, R/o-Tilak Talav, Near Mital Garage, Dharangaon, Dist-Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT. ... Mr.U.S. Malte Advocate for Petitioner. ... CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATE : 7TH AUGUST, 2009. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner. Present Petition is preferred by original Respondent Dharangaon Municipal Council against the Judgment dated 17th March, 2009 passed by the Industrial Court, Jalgaon in Complaint (ULP) No.23 of 2008. The Respondent is original complainant. Original Respondent filed 2 Complaint (ULP) No.604 of 1989 under Item 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971. The Respondent contended in the said Complaint that he was working as driver on daily wages with the Petitioner since 1985 and he was in regular and continuous service of the Petitioner and worked for more than 240 days in each year of service, but he was not made permanent and denied him all the benefits which were available to the permanent workers. The said Complaint came to be decided by order dated 13th November, 1996 by the Industrial Court, Nashik. The operative part of the said order reads as under: "1) It is hereby declared that the respondent is indulging in unfair labour practice complained under Item 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, 1971. 2) The respondent is directed to cease, stop and desist from indulges in the said unfair labour practice in the Act of unfair labour practice complained of. 3) The respondent is also directed to make the complainant permanent w.e. 3 from 01.01.90 as a driver and pay him the wages that he is entitled for the said post after adjustment daily wages already paid to him. 4) The respondent is further directed to pay the complaint his un-paid wages for the month of May, June and July, 1989 at the rate of daily wages he has being paid at that time. 5) No order as to costs." 2. It is specifically stated in the order dated 13th November, 1996 that the Petitioner is directed to make the Respondent - original complainant permanent in service with effect from 1st January, 1990 as a driver and pay him the wages that he is entitled for the said post after adjustment daily wages already paid to him. Learned counsel for the Petitioner admitted that the said order is not challenged by the Petitioner before higher authority. Thereafter the Petitioner issued a letter dated 30th September, 1998, fixing the Respondent's pay in the pay scale of Rs.950-1400 from 1st October, 1998. Thereafter the Respondent called upon the Petitioner to pay him arrears of salary as well as 4 other benefits vide notice dated 6th December, 2002. As the Petitioner failed to comply the said notice dated 6th December, 2002, the Respondent filed Complaint (ULP) No.23 of 2008, the order passed in which is impugned in the present Writ Petition. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that as per the order dated 13th November, 1996, the Petitioner never issued any appointment letter to the Respondent as permanent in the service, therefore the Respondent is not entitled to any benefit as a permanent employee. 4. It is admitted fact that the order dated 13th November, 1996 passed by the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No.604 of 1989 is not challenged by the Petitioner and therefore the same is binding on the Petitioner. It is also admitted position that as per the order dated 13th November, 1996 the Respondent filed Complaint (ULP) No.23 of 2008 before the Industrial Court, Jalgaon and the same came to be allowed. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the present Writ Petition because the Industrial Court, Jalgaon by order dated 17th March, 2009 directed the Petitioner to 5 pay arrears and other benefits to the Respondent employee in view of the order dated 13th November, 1996 passed by the Industrial Court, Nashik in Complaint (ULP) No.23 of 2008. The Writ Petition is dismissed summarily with no order as to the costs. [K.K. TATED, J.] asb/JULY09/wp5013.09