( 1 ) wp1411-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1411 OF 2010 Sonyabapu Patilba Dahiphale PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others RESPONDENTS .... Mr. P.V. Barde, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Patil, AGP for the respondent No.1/State. Mr. G.N. Patil, advocate for the respondents No. 2 to 4. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 6th January, 2011] PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges judgement and order dated 10th September, 2009 rendered by learned Member of the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar. By the impugned judgement, the complaint application filed by the petitioner was partly allowed and the respondents were directed to pay the difference of wages after conferring status under the C.R.T. as per the Kalelkar Award to the petitioner till the date of his superannuation i.e. 30th ( 2 ) wp1411-10 April, 1997. 3. The petitioner's contention is that he was entitled to receive the pensionary benefits and gratuity. The petitioner was appointed on 21st June, 1986 as a daily wager. He was brought on C.R.T. w.e.f. 21st June, 1991. He was, however, terminated from the service on 24th June, 2005 as a result of departmental enquiry on the charge that he had concealed date of birth and thereafter worked for eight (8) years more over and above the date of superannuation. The petitioner admitted that he concealed the real date of birth. There is no difficulty in holding that though he was supposed to be superannuated on 30th April, 1997, yet, he continued to work for period of about eight (8) years more. Admittedly, he was paid the salary for the period of said eight (8) years. There is no recovery of the amount, claimed by the respondents from the petitioner, in respect of the payment made to him for the period of about eight (8) years which was the employment in excess the date of superannuation. 4. The contention of the petitioner was that he has been discriminated because a similarly placed employee by name Waman Pundlik Dahiphale was awarded lesser penalty of stoppage ( 3 ) wp1411-10 of increment whereas he has been dismissed from service. It is pertinent to notice that the petitioner did not challenge his termination from the service in the complaint application (ULP) No. 23/2007. The prayers made in the said application do not, even remotely, show that he desired to challenge the termination. The discrimination sought to be removed was only in respect of the payment of the pensionary benefits. It is true that the pensionary benefits do follow the valid pensionable service which could be accounted for. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that pleadings before the Industrial Court could not have been construed strictly. In support of his contention, he invited my attention to observations in "Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department vs. Waman Atmaram Lede and another" 2005 (2) Bom.C.R. 568 and "Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Limited vs. Brihan Mumbai Unit of Journalists and others" 2001 II CLR 76. There cannot be any duality of opinion that in construing the pleadings, liberal approach is required to be taken. It is also true that the pleadings before the Labour Court or Industrial Court are required to be construed liberally. However, it does not mean that in absence of any pleadings, the relief, which was never sought, could have been granted by ( 4 ) wp1411-10 the Industrial Court. The petitioner never sought relief against termination of his service. His entire grouse is based upon alleged discrimination regarding payment of pensionary benefits to him and to another similarly placed employee i.e. Waman Pundlik Dahiphale. It is important to notice that said Waman Dahiphale was awarded penalty of stoppage of increment with permanent effect while he was in service. He was to retire on 31st August, 2007 and, therefore, yet, two (2) years' service was available to him after the imposition of the minor penalty, even on basis of the correct date of the birth, which was mentioned in the school record. The petitioner's case is altogether different. He was to get superannuated on 30th April, 1997, but taking undue advantage of the fabricated record, he continued in the service for more than eight (8) years and as such, he was found to be beneficiary of such fabricated record whereas Waman Dahiphale was not actually benefitted due to such record. This is basic difference between the case of the petitioner and that of Waman Dahiphale. Needless to say that the petitioner's case cannot be compared with that of Waman Dahiphale. Considering these aspects, the impugned judgement and order does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. ( 5 ) wp1411-10 6. In the result, the petition is dismissed. No costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/wp1411-10