vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1987 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1987 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1987 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3435 OF 2000 WRIT PETITION NO.3435 OF 2000 WRIT PETITION NO.3435 OF 2000 The General Manager Greater Mumbai Milk Scheme & Ors. ... Petitioners V/s. M.K. Tambi & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.R.V. Sakpal for Petitioner Mr.A.P. Vanarse, AGP, for Respondents CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J MHATRE, J MHATRE, J. DATED: SEPTEMBER 17, 2008 SEPTEMBER 17, 2008 SEPTEMBER 17, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . This civil application has been filed for extending the benefits of the order dated 27.3.2003 to the applicants by revising their wagescales to Rs.4000/- - Rs.6000/- and for expediting the hearing of the petition. By consent, the writ petition is taken up on Board forthwith and heard finally. 2. The petition challenges the common order passed in complaint (ULP) Nos.775, 776 and 799 of 1996. Complaint (ULP) No.775 of 1996 was filed by Respondent No.1. Complaint (ULP) No.776 by Respondent No.2 and Complaint (ULP) No.799 by Respondent No.3. The Complaints were filed alleging that the petitioners have committed unfair labour practice under Items 3,5,9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. The Industrial Court while allowing the complaints has found that the workman had completed 240 days of continuous : 2 : service with the petiitoners. It has directed the petitioners to pay difference in wages, allowances, benefits and privileges with retrospective effect from the date from which the complainants have completed 240 days of continuous service. 3. An affidavit has been filed in reply to the civil application. The Deputy Director (Administration) of the Greater Mumbai Milk Scheme. She has averred in her affidavit that a similar order was passed in complaint (ULP) No.772 of 1996 by the Industrial Court in respect of other workmen who were similarly situated. Respondent NO.2 herein was one of the complainants in that complaint as well. The order of the Industrial Court was challenged according to her in the apex Court by the petitioners by preferring Special Leave Petition No.1824 of 2001. This SLP was decided alongwith connected matters including Civil Appeal No.3070 of 1999 on 24.7.2001. The petition and the Civil appeals were dismissed by the order of 24.7.2001 by the Supreme Court. The following order has been passed: "In respect of the employees working in the Dairy Development department of the State of Maharashtra a Suo Moto Writ petition NO.4756/1998 datd 20.4.1989 had been filed. The learned counsel for the State of Maharashtra conceded that after completion of 240 days of continuous service, the employees are entitled to be confirmed in the post held by them. Since : 3 : this position has been conceded and the view taken by the High Court is consistent with that stand we do not think that there is any good reason for us to interfere with the order made by the High Court. The appears stand dismissed accordingly." 4. Thus it is common ground that the issues involved in the complaint (ULP) No.772 of 1996 are the same as the issues involved in the present complaint. It is also common ground that the reliefs granted by the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No.772 of 1996 are the same as those granted by the Industrial Court in the order impugned in this petition. In view of the civil appeals and Special Leave Petitions having been dismissed against the order of the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No.772 of 1996, I do not see any reason why the present petition cannot be disposed of by upholding the order of the Industrial Court. After the order was passed by the Supreme Court it has been implemented qua 85 workmen. However, the pendency of this petition has deterred the petitioners from implementing the order with respect to the Respondents, thereby giving effect to the order of the Industrial Court. 5. The Petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. 6. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, nothing remains in the the Civil Application No.1987 of : 4 : 2008 and the same is disposed of accordingly.