:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8101 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 971 OF 2008 1. Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Transport and anr. ..Petitioners Vs. 1. Ganesh Govind Goland and ors. ..Respondents Mr. G.H. Keluskar for petitioners. Mr. K.S. Bapat i/by Mr. P.S. Mohalkar for respondent nos.1 to 46. Mr. S.N. Patil, AGP for respondent no.48. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE,J. B.H. MARLAPALLE,J. B.H. MARLAPALLE,J. Reserved Reserved Reserved on : August 01, 2008. on : August 01, 2008. on : August 01, 2008. Pronounced Pronounced Pronounced on : on : on : August 12, 2008. August 12, 2008. August 12, 2008. JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: 1. This petition was placed before me for hearing on Civil Application No. 971 of 2008 filed by the original respondents in Writ Petition No.8101 of 2007 with a prayer to vacate the interim order dated 12/3/2008 passed in the said petition. The petitioner-establishment filed its reply opposing the application and as agreed between the parties and with their consent, the petition was finally heard. :2: . Though this petition is claimed to have been filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the prayer in the petition is to quash and set aside the impugned Judgment and Order of the Industrial Court and hence the petition will have to be treated as the one filed under Article 227 of the Constitution. 2. The Writ Petition is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 30/8/2007 rendered by the Industrial Court at Pune thereby allowing Complaint (ULP) No. 104 of 2006. The said complaint was filed by 46 employees in Clerical cadre (Class-III) who have been in the employment of the petitioner-establishment from November, 1990. The petitioner-establishment is an undertaking of the Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation and it had, at the relevant time, about 1000 employees on its roll in different categories. The salary and the other benefits of the employees are as per the Pay Commission recommendations as applicable to the State Government. As per the Government Resolution dated 8/6/1995 issued by the State Government, the employees in Class-III and IV :3: were granted the benefit of promotion on completion of 12 years of regular service so as to deal with the stagnation. The Selection Committee constituted by the Corporation by its decision dated 19/11/2003 approved the promotion to be given to the complainants. The said decision was put up before the Transport Committee on 22/1/2004 and it was approved. The complainants were placed in the payscale of Rs.1400-40-1800-EB-50-2300 with effect from November, 2002 as per the decision dated 7/2/2004. The arrears from November, 2002 to March, 2004 were also granted to them. The complainants alleged that from the month of October, 2005, without any notice to the complainants, the said promotion granted from November, 2002 was unilaterally withdrawn. It appears the Government of Maharashtra issued a Circular on 3/10/2005 and as per the Corporation this Circular directed that the employees of the petitioner-establishment were not eligible for any arrears and their payscale as per the settlement dated 1/4/1997 were approved by the State Government under Section 346(2)(a) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. Accordingly, the petitioner-establishment passed a Resolution on :4: 13/10/2005 and issued an order on 10/11/2005. As per the said order, as per the payscale set out in the settlement dated 1/4/1997 the complainants were eligible for the payscale of Rs.950-200-1150-EB-25-1500 (unrevised) and Rs. 3250 - 75 - 4000 - 80-4800-85-5225-90-5675-95-8715 (revised). Consequently, the benefit of higher payscale of Rs.1400-40-1800-EB-50-2300 (unrevised) and Rs. 4100 - 100-5100-105-6150- 110 - 6700 - 115-7275-120-10395 (revised) was withdrawn. As a result, there was a reduction in the monthly salary of the complainants. The complainants alleged that the employer-establishment was guilty of unfair labour practice under Items 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 in their Complaint (ULP) No. 104 of 104 of 2006. They had also filed an application for interim relief under Section 30(2) of the said Act and on 20/10/2006 the said application was allowed in terms of the following reliefs:- "The respondents are directed to give the payscale of Rs.4100-100-5100-105- 6150-110-6700-115-7275-120-10395 from the date :5: of order till the disposal of complaint." The said order was challenged before this court in Writ Petition No. 7702 of 2006 and it was rejected summarily on 13/2/2007. 3. After considering the evidence as adduced by the respective parties, the complaint came to be finally decided by the impugned Judgment and Order and while holding that the employer-establishment had engaged in acts of unfair labour practice within the meaning of Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971, the Industrial Court gave the following directions:- (a) The respondent should pay all the monetary benefits of the pay baing received under the Government Circular dated 8/6/1995 and Government Circular dated 3/10/2005, to all the complainants. (b) All the complainants should pay benefits of pay being received under the Government Circular dated 8/6/1995 with effect from :6: October, 2005. All the complainants should be paid difference of amount of monetary benefit as per the revised pay scale, under the Government Circular dated 3/10/2005 with effect from November, 2005. The respondent should implement this order within six months from the date hereof. (c) While paying the amounts to the complainants, as mentioned hereinabove, the respondent should take into account the amount paid to the Complainants till this day, as per the Court’s order and should deduct the same and should pay the balance amount to the complainants. 4. There is no dispute that as per the Government Resolution dated 4/1/1983, the provisions of Maharashtra Civil Service Rules were made applicable to the employees of the Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation, mutatis mutandis. The Government Resolution dated 8/6/1995 stated that in order to avoid stagnation and to improve the efficiency of the employees it was agreed to give payscale in the :7: promotional scale to the employees who had completed 12 years of service and the said GR is admittedly applicable to the employees of the petitioner-establishment, as is clear from the letter dated 7/2/2004 issued by the General Manager of the petitioner. It was also not in dispute that as per the order passed by the General Manager on 7/2/2004, the complainants were given the payscale in promotional cadre that too with arrears. The payscale so granted was Rs.1400-40-1800-EB-50-2300 (unrevised) and Rs. 4100-100-5100-105-6150-110-6700-115-7275 -120-10395 (revised). The next GR dated 3/10/2005 on which the petitioner-establishment placed reliance and which was issued in exercise of the powers under Section 346(2)(a) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, the State Government accorded sanction for the application of revised payscales to the employees of the petitioner-establishment and as applicable to the employees of the Pune Municipal Transport (PMT). The said GR did not even remotely say that the earlier GR dated 8/6/1995 was withdrawn or that benefits granted thereunder were required to be withdrawn or discontinued and as per the GR dated 3/10/2005 the Government approved the application of :8: revised payscales from the year 1997. 5. It was urged by the petitioner-establishment that as per the settlement dated 20/5/1999, as applicable to the employees of PMT, one additional increment on completion of 7 years service, two increments after completion of 14 years of service and three increments after completion of 21 years of service were provided and if the said payscale, as applicable to the PMT employees, were extended to the complainants as per the GR dated 3/10/2005, they could not claim the benefit of the GR dated 8/6/1996 regarding promotion after completion of 12 years of service and this was the only ground on the basis of which the establishment denied the benefit of promotion and consequently higher payscale of Rs. Rs. 4100 - 100 -5100-105-6150-110-6700-115-7275-120-10395. In Writ Petition No. 7702 of 2006, while confirming the interim order passed by the Industrial Court on 20/10/2006, this court observed as under:- "....It is relevant to note that the pay scale made available to the respondents in the year 2002 (on completion of 12 years of service) :9: was Rs.1400-40-1800-EB-50-2300 and the corresponding scale admissible to PMT employees as per the settlement entered into in the year 1997 is Rs. 4100-100-5100-105-6150-110 - 6700-115-7275-120 -10395. Irrespective of the said pay scale prescribed for the employees in the cadre of Senior clerk working with PMT, the respondents were tried to be filled in the pay scale of Rs. 3250-75-400-80-4800 - 85-2225-90-5675-95- 8715......." 6. In the affidavit filed by the Deputy Secretary in the Urban Development Department, Government of Maharashtra, it has been pointed out that as per the Government Resolution dated 19/4/2007, the Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Transport and Pune Municipal Transport (two separate establishments of two different Municipal Corporations) have been merged into one company called "Pune Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd." and it is, therefore, clear that there cannot be two sets of service conditions :10: applicable to the employees of the said newly formed company. I have perused the Government Resolution dated 8/6/1995 and the subsequent GR dated 3/10/2005. Both these resolutions deal with different subjects. First one deals with promotion in the next higher payscales to the employees in Class - C and D on completion of 12 years service so as to deal with the issue of stagnation and motivate the employees for better efficiency and performance. This GR dated 8/6/1995 is applicable to all the State Government employees, whereas the GR dated 3/10/2005 deals with the revised payscales of the petitioner-establishment. It reads as under:- 7. The said GR dated 3/10/2005 does not state that on bringing parity of payscales between the :11: employees of the Pimpri Chichwad Municipal Transport and the Pune Municipal Transport, the benefits given under the GR dated 8/6/1995 stand withdrawn. On the other hand it only states that on granting the revised payscales, arrears, if any, shall not be payable to the employees of Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Transport. Even otherwise, it cannot be accepted that the employees of the Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Transport would be getting more emoluments than the employees of the Pune Municipal Transport on implementation of the GR dated 3/10/2005. A comparable statement of the salaries payable to similarly placed employees of two Transport Establishments has been placed on record and as per the same, an employee who joined PMT on 6/11/1990 would get monthly basic salary of Rs.4320/- as on 1/11/2002, whereas the employee of PCMT who joined on the very same date would get a monthly basic salary of Rs.4100/- as on 6/11/2002 (after completion of 12 years of service) though in the payscale of Rs.4100-100 - 5100 - 105 -6150-110-6700-115- 7275-120- 10395. Similarly as on 1/11/2006 the same PMT employee would draw a basic of Rs.4720/- as compared to the basic salary of Rs.4600/- of the PCMT employee. The interpretation placed by the :12: petitioner-establishment on the GR dated 3/10/2005 is, therefore, misconceived and consequently it could not have withdrawn the benefits granted to the complainants under the GR dated 8/6/1995 and by withdrawal of the said benefits, the petitioner-establishment engaged in an act of unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, 1971, as has been rightly held by the Industrial Court. . It is well settled that while exercising the supervisory powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, this court will not interfere or set aside the orders of the courts below on a question of fact or law until and unless it appears to the court that such decisions of the courts below are, on the face of it, perverse and made on erroneous assumptions of law or that they are wrong which was apparent on the face of the record ( Mohd. Safi vs. Addl. District and Sessions Judge - AIR 1977 SC 836). It is equally well settled that while considering the scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court is entitled to interfere with the orders of the courts below when such orders are :13: patently erroneous and de hors the factual and legal position on record. On the touch stone of the scope of supervisory powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, no case has been made out to cause interference in the impugned order of the Industrial Court. 8. In the premises, this petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. Rule discharged. Interim order stands vacated. No costs. 9. Civil Application No. 971 of 2008 does not survive and the same shall stand disposed as such. (B.H. (B.H. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) Marlapalle,J.) Marlapalle,J.)