1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 3047 OF 2010. Sakharam Kisanrao Dawale and another. -: VERSUS :- Director of Agriculture, Pune and others. 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. DATED : SEPTEMBER 30, 2010. This Court has issued notice for final disposal, as Industrial Court in proceedings under Section 50 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act, has refused to take cognizance because of the alleged dispute of pay scale applicable to the post of Laboratory Attendant. It is not in dispute that the petitioners filed Complaint ULP No. 608/1990 and vide judgment dated 18.10.2001 the Industrial Court, Amravati has allowed that complaint. This judgment is common in ULP Complaint Nos. 608/1990 and 424/1993. The complainant in ULP Case No. 424/1993 Amit Kokate has 2 expired. Hence, Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally. The Industrial Court in its judgment found the complainant before it entitled to regularization as Laboratory Attendant from the date on which each of them completed 5 years of service. This order was challenged by the present respondent in Writ Petition No. 540/2002, and that Writ Petition was dismissed by this Court. Thereafter, the present petitioners as also widow of the deceased Anil Kokate filed proceedings under Section 50 of the MRTU & PULP Act, and the proceedings filed by the present petitioners were registered as Recovery (ULP) Application No.3/2002. The Industrial Court found that in government notification there were two posts of Laboratory Attendants. One was in the pay scale of Rs. 750-940, while the other was in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1400. It has also noted that this was apparent from the entries at Sr. Nos. 166 and 176 in government notification dated 10.12.1995. As it found that the earlier order of the Industrial Court sought to be executed/implemented, did not mention any particular pay scale to which the applicants before it were entitled, recourse to Section 50 of the MRTU & PULP Act was misconceived. It 3 has therefore, dismissed the application. Shri N.R. Saboo, learned Counsel appearing for petitioners contend that there was never any dispute about the applicability of pay scale of Rs. 950-1400 to the present petitioners. Said pay scale was pressed into service before this Court when the present petitioners filed reply in Writ Petition No.540/2002. The respondents never raised a defence that on their establishment posts of laboratory attendants with such pay scale is not available or then, the defence that the post with pay scale of Rs. 750-940 was only available. He therefore, contends that the Industrial Court has worked out a dispute when there was none and for non- existing reasons, has rejected the application. According to learned A.G.P. the establishment schedule accompanying the government notification itself shows that two posts with different pay scales and as there was no specific finding by the Industrial Court in its earlier judgment dated 18.10.2001, the proceedings under Section 50 of the MRTU & PULP Act are rightly found to be not maintainable. With the assistance of the respective counsel, I have perused the papers. I do not find any specific case either before the Industrial Court or before this Court by the 4 respondents, that post of laboratory attendant in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1400 is not available in their establishment. There is no defence that such post with the pay scale of Rs. 750-940 is only available. I, therefore, find substance in the contentions of Shri Saboo, learned Counsel that the learned Industrial Court has found a dispute when in reality it did not exist. However, the impugned order passed under Section 50 of the Act, reveals arguments advanced on behalf of the present respondent about such pay scale and non- availability thereof. The present petitioners have already received part of the amount as per the judgment dated 18.10.2001. The question is of their entitlement to balance amount. In this situation, interest of justice can be met with by giving opportunity to petitioners to raise appropriate plea in proceedings under Section 50 of the MRTU & PULP Act before the Industrial Court. If the respondents can place appropriate material indicating the scales and the details of the posts of laboratory attendant, it is clear that the entitlement of the present petitioners can be worked out accordingly. For said purpose, the impugned order dated 01.02.2010 passed passed in Recovery (ULP) Application 5 No.3/2002 by the Industrial Court is quashed and set aside. The same is subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5000/- by the petitioners to the respondents. If the costs are paid by 30.11.2010, the learned Member of Industrial Court shall permit the respondents to amend their pleadings and to file additional documents. The Industrial Court can ask the parties to lead additional evidence, if required. Then learned Industrial Court shall pass appropriate final orders in proceedings under Section 50 of the Act, in accordance with the law. The said order shall be passed as early as possible and in any case by 31.03.2011. If the costs are not paid the learned Member of the Industrial Court shall consider the material on record and pass fresh orders under Section 50 after hearing oral arguments advanced by the parties within the same time limit. Writ Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. JUDGE Rgd.