-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.4503 OF 1997 D.V. Sawant & Ors. : Petitioners V/s. M/s.Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. & Anr. : Respondents ... Mr.T.R.Yadav i/b. Abhay Kulkarni for the petitioners. Mr.P.K.Rele with Mr.P.N.Anaokar and Mr.Rahul D. Oak for respondent no.1. ... CORAM : S.A. BOBDE, J. DATE : JANUARY 21, 2009. P.C. 1. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 21.2.1997 of the Industrial Court, Mumbai, dismissing their complaint. 2. In brief, the petitioners’ complaint was that though 19 workmen were made permanent by the company in February 1982 and though another set of 52 workmen were made permanent in January 1985, these 19 workmen have been drawing less wages than the other 52 workmen. According to the petitioners, all the 19 complainants were made permanent in February 1982 and they were placed in the grade starting with Rs.50/-. They were initially paid -: 2 :- wages in the scale of Rs.80-88-96-104-112-120-129- 138-156-165-175-185-205-215-EB-226-237-248-259-270. After the settlement, the said grade was revised starting with Rs.500-550-600-650-700-750-810-870-930-990-1050-EB-1120- 1190-1260-1330-1400-1480-1560-1640-1720-1800. According to the petitioners, before signing the settlement dated 25.10.1989, they were drawing Rs.75.20 or so, more than the other 52 workmen who were junior to them. Therefore, the difference was reduced to Rs.27.20. However, thereafter, the 52 junior workmen started drawing higher wages than the petitioners. According to the petitioners, therefore, a discrimination in two sets of workmen i.e. 19 petitioners and 52 junior workmen on the other hand was brought about. In short, according to the petitioners, after the settlement, they have been receiving less than 52 workmen and the same constitutes an unfair labour practice under items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. The Industrial Court has gone into the matter in great detail and came to the conclusion that there was no favouritism or mala fides practised by the respondent no.1. The difference in salary was initially on account of the fact that the other 52 workmen got their increment in January 1990 and the petitioners got it in July 1990. However, the difference in salary was later on neutralised. Further, the Industrial Court came to the conclusion that the petitioners are not entitled to be -: 3 :- fitted in ‘C’ skilled workman grade with effect from 25.10.1989. In particular, the Industrial Court has pointed out that the petitioners have not led any evidence to establish that they were entitled to three increments more than the 52 junior workmen. 3. Mr.Rele, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1, pointed out that subsequent to the settlement of 1989, there have been several other settlements between the company and its employees i.e. settlements dated 27.7.1994, 2.7.1998, 28.1.2003 and 19.10.2006. There is a further averment that 10 petitioners have accepted the settlement dated 19.10.2006 and the rest have accepted the settlement dated 11.12.2006 after they were transferred to Thane. According to Mr.Rele, the pay scales have been revised in the subsequent settlement and the petitioners have been fitted in the scales applicable to them. The petitioners have accepted the fitment and benefits. 4. Mr.Yadav, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has not been able to point out any statement in the affidavit-in-reply denying that the petitioners entered into subsequent settlements and have accepted fitments and benefits in such subsequent settlements. 5. Without going into the merits, it is not appropriate -: 4 :- to decide the petitioners’ claim for fitment under the 1989 settlement after they have voluntarily accepted the fitment and settlement subsequently on several occasions. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule stands discharged. S.A. BOBDE, J.