:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6148 OF 1995 The Chief Officer, Ichalkaranji Municipal Council, Ichalkaranji. ..Petitioner Vs. Smt. Shobhana Suresh Soman and ors. ..Respondents Mr. T.S. Ingale for petitioner. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. Date : March 10, 2008. Date : March 10, 2008. Date : March 10, 2008. ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. The petitioner - Municipal Council is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30/11/1994 rendered by the Industrial Court at Kolhapur thereby allowing Complaint (ULP) Nos.275, 276, 277 and 294 of 1989 filed under Item 9 of Schedule IV read with Section 28 of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 (the Act for short). The Industrial Court directed to fix the basic salary of the complainants at Rs.410/- as on 1/4/1976 in Complaint (ULP) Nos.275, 277 and 294 :2: of 1989, whereas in Complaint (ULP) No. 276 of 1989 the basic salary was directed to be fixed at Rs.500. 2. The complainants have been in the employment of the Zilla Parishad as staff nurses and prior to 1/4/1976 their basic salary was fixed in the payscale of Rs.135-5-150-6-180-7-215. As on 1/4/1976 the basic salaries of the complainants were as under:- Name Date of Basic salary joining as on 1/4/76 ----- ------- ------------ 1. Shobhana Soman 22/10/69 Rs.168/- 2. Surekha Deshpande 1/4/64 Rs.201/- 3. Shantabai Satpute 25/4/70 Rs.162/- 4. Indumati Gaikwad 1/5/68 Rs.174/- 3. The office of the Collector at Kolhapur issued an order on 17/10/1980 in exercise of the Collector’s powers under Section 76 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965 and revised the payscale on the lines of the recommendations of the Bhole Commission with effect from 1/4/1976. The payscale of :3: the staff nurses was revised to Rs.335-15-500-20-580-EB-20-680. Consequently, in the new payscale the basic salaries of the respective complainants as on 1/4/1976 were as under:- Name New Payscale as on 1/4/1976 ----- ------------------ 1. Shobhana Soman Rs. 365/- 2. Surekha Deshpande Rs. 440/- 3. Shantabai Satpute Rs. 365/- 4. Indumati Gaikwad Rs. 365/- 4. On 21/10/1988 the Government of Maharashtra issued a GR and revised the payscale of staff nurses at Rs.365-15-500-20-660-EB-20-760 and this was to be made effective from 1/4/1976. Thus the earlier payscale of Rs.335-680 was replaced by the revised payscale of Rs.365-760. The Industrial Court agreed with this proposition but noted that as per the pay fixation Rules under the Maharashtra Civil Services Pay Rules, one increment in the original payscale and one increment in the new payscale was to be given :4: while fixing the salary in the new scale. This observation does not find support in the GR dated 17/4/1978 by which the Maharashtra Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules 1978 were published. Therefore, to that extent the directions to grant two more increments in the new payscale is not in consonance with the Rules. Consequently, the allegation that the Zilla Parishad had committed or engaged in an unfair labour practice are unsustainable. The Zilla Parishad in its Written Statement clearly stated that the payscale of Rs.135-215 was revised initially to 335-680 as per the Collector’s order and subsequently when the Government issued the GR dated 21/10/1988 the same payscale was revised to Rs.365-760 and the pay fixation of the complainants was done in keeping with the Rules published in the GR dated 17/4/1978. Nothing contrary was brought out in the complaint or in the evidence by the complainants and, therefore, there was no reason for the Industrial Court to record a finding that the Zilla Parishad was guilty of unfair labour practice within the meaning of Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act. While granting Rule, this court had stayed the impugned order and, therefore, :5: the complainants continued to receive the salary as fixed by the Zilla Parishad. 5. In the premises, this petition succeeds and the same is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment and order is quashed and set aside and consequently Complaint (ULP) Nos. 275, 276, 277 and 294 of 1989 stand dismissed. 6. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)