1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3819 OF 2010 (Ramdas Mahadeosa Gulhane vs. MSRTC, Yavatmal) 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. OCTOBER 07, 2010. Heard finally with the consent of Shri Kale, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Wankhede, learned counsel for the respondent. The petitioner approached the Industrial Court with a grievance that his increments were withheld by way of punishment without cumulative effect hence after expiry of said period, those increments needed to be released and pay of his juniors should not have exceeded his pay. Shri Kale, learned counsel states that the material aspect that increments were withheld without cumulative effect has been totally lost sight of by the Industrial Court and the mind applied is as if the increments have been permanently withheld. Shri Wankhede, learned counsel has supported the impugned order by stating that increments were permanently withheld and hence pay of juniors has exceeded the pay of the petitioner – complainant. 2 Before the Industrial Court, it was not in dispute that on account of two punishments inflicted upon the petitioner, his increments were withheld continuously for a period of 18 months but that is without cumulative effect. The exact order of punishment is not produced before this Court. However, from the language of Industrial Court, it is apparent that said punishment was not supposed to have a permanent effect. The reason given by Industrial Court that as increments of his juniors were never withheld, petitioner’s pay scale is bound to be less than his juniors, is therefore, erroneous. It appears that effect of punishment as imposed upon the petitioner is only to postpone the release of increments in his favour by 18 months. After 18 months, increments need to be released but the petitioner does not become entitled to any arrears on account of increments released after the said period of 18 months. The Industrial Court has thus acted with material irregularity and has ignored the settled law in the matter. Its judgment dated 20.11.2009 in Complaint ULP No. 38 of 2004 is, therefore, quashed and set aside. As the order of punishment is not before this Court, the respondent is directed to reconsider the entire aspect and if the withholding of increments was not on permanent basis, to release necessary increments to the petitioner. Appropriate decision in this respect be taken as early as possible and in any case by 31st March 3 2011. Writ Petition is thus partly allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.