IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDCITION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.93 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 905 OF 2008 Administrative Officer & Anr. .. Appellants. Vs. Mr. Lalit Dattatraya Jantre. .. Respondent -- Ms Manish Shekhar i/by M/s. J. Shekhar & Co. for the Appellants. Shri Anilkumar Patil for the Respondent. -- CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & S.A. BOBDE, J DATE : 24TH OCTOBER, 2008 P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for both the parties. The challenge in the present appeal is to the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 3rd March, 2008 vide which the writ petition challenging the correctness and legality of the judgment and order dated 26th October, 2007 passed by the Industrial Court, Nashik, was dismissed. 3. The short question raised before us by the learned Counsel for the Appellants is that the Respondent had never worked as Junior Clerk but was actually working as Assistant to the Junior Clerk and was not entitled to the benefit of higher salary from 14th March, 1996. This argument is without any merit. Firstly, the Trial Court recorded a finding of fact based on evidence that the Respondent was actually working in the clerical cadre. This finding of fact has been duly affirmed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment. We see no reason to vary the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge, as they are neither perverse nor based upon the evidence. Furthermore, we may notice that in the order 26th October, 2007 passed by the Industrial Court, Nashik, in Complaint (ULP) No.118 of 2003, it has been specifically noticed as under:- “..... As per the said order the complainant gave joining report and started to work as Assistant Clerk with the respondent. From that date till today the complainant has been working as Assistant Clerk and doing the work of clerical category i.e. Of Junior Clerk. The category of Assistant Clerk and Junior Clerk are the same. It is pertinent to note that, while issuing the said order and passing resolution the respondents obtained undertaking from the complainant that, “He will do the work of clerical category in the wage scale of peon/kamathi”. The said act of the respondents is an act of force, which is unfair labour practice under item 10 of schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971.” 4. From bare reading of the above facts, it is clear that there is hardly any dispute to the fact that the Respondent was working in the clerical cadre and was compelled to give an undertaking. We see no reason to interfere in the impugned order. The Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE, J