1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4985 OF 2011 The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Through its Divisional Controller, Near Ambedkar Putala, Osmanabad, Tq. and Dist.Osmanabad. PETITIONER VERSUS Shri.Chandrakant Ganpatrao Kadam, Age:51 years, Occu: Service, R/o : Ramhari Nagar, Bhoom, Tq.Bhoom, District Osmanabad. RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4991 OF 2011 The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Through its Divisional Controller, Near Ambedkar Putala, Osmanabad, Tq. and Dist.Osmanabad. PETITIONER VERSUS Shri.Sopan Dnyanoba Gajare, Age:50 years, Occu:Service, R/o Pathrud, Tq.Bhoom, District Osmanabad. RESPONDENT 2 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4986 OF 2011 The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Through its Divisional Controller, Near Ambedkar Putala, Osmanabad, Tq. and Dist.Osmanabad. PETITIONER VERSUS Shri Prabhakar Namdeo Autade, Age:52 years, Occu:Service, R/o : Laxmi Nagar, Bhoom, Tq.Bhoom, District Osmanabad. RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4987 OF 2011 The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Through its Divisional Controller, Near Ambedkar Putala, Osmanabad, Tq. and Dist.Osmanabad. PETITIONER VERSUS Shri Balasaheb Narayanrao Deshmukh, Age:50 years, Occu:Service, R/o: Vairag, Tq.Barshi, District Osmanabad. RESPONDENT 3 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4988 OF 2011 The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Through its Divisional Controller, Near Ambedkar Putala, Osmanabad, Tq. and Dist.Osmanabad. PETITIONER VERSUS Shri.Govind Deorao Jawale, Age: 50 years, Occu:Service, R/o Yermala, Tq.Kallam, District Osmanabad. RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4989 OF 2011 The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Through its Divisional Controller, Near Ambedkar Putala, Osmanabad, Tq. and Dist.Osmanabad. PETITIONER VERSUS Shri.Sudam Vishwanath Kawade, Age:38 years, Occu:Service, R/o : Washi, Tq.Washi, District Osmanabad. RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4990 OF 2011 4 The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Through its Divisional Controller, Near Ambedkar Putala, Osmanabad, Tq. and Dist.Osmanabad. PETITIONER VERSUS Shri.Tukaram Pralhad Kadavkar, Age:48 years, Occu:Service, R/o : Terkheda, Tq.Washi, Dist.Osmanabad. RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4992 OF 2011 The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Through its Divisional Controller, Near Ambedkar Putala, Osmanabad, Tq. and Dist.Osmanabad. PETITIONER VERSUS Shri Angad Kundlik Pimple, Age:43 years, Occu: Service, R/o : Bavi, Tq.Bhoom, District Osmanabad. RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4993 OF 2011 The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Through its Divisional Controller, 5 Near Ambedkar Putala, Osmanabad, Tq. and Dist.Osmanabad. PETITIONER VERSUS Shri Ramdas Kondiba Kagde, Age:48 years, Occu: Service, R/o : Golegaon, Tq.Washi, District Osmanabad. RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4994 OF 2011 The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Through its Divisional Controller, Near Ambedkar Putala, Osmanabad, Tq. and Dist.Osmanabad. PETITIONER VERSUS Shri Ravindra Parbatrao Autade, Age: 41 years, Occu.: Service, R/o : Gormala, Tq.Bhoom, District Osmanabad. RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4995 OF 2011 The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Through its Divisional Controller, Near Ambedkar Putala, Osmanabad, Tq. and Dist.Osmanabad. PETITIONER 6 VERSUS Shri Dnyanoba Manikrao Somwanshi, Age:57 years, Occu : Service, R/o : Jalkot, Tq.Tuljapur, District Osmanabad. RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4996 OF 2011 The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Through its Divisional Controller, Near Ambedkar Putala, Osmanabad, Tq. and Dist.Osmanabad. PETITIONER VERSUS Shri Satish Ramling Chikhale, Age : 50 years, Occu. : Service, R/o : Mankeshwar, Tq.Bhoom, District Osmanabad. RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4997 OF 2011 The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Through its Divisional Controller, Near Ambedkar Putala, Osmanabad, Tq. and Dist.Osmanabad. PETITIONER VERSUS Shri Vasudeo Narayan Doke, 7 Age: 50 years, Occu. : Service, R/o Bhoom, Tq. Bhoom, District Osmanabad. RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4998 OF 2011 The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Through its Divisional Controller, Near Ambedkar Putala, Osmanabad, Tq. and Dist.Osmanabad. PETITIONER VERSUS Shri Dnyandeo Govind Andhare, Age: 49 years, Occu. : Service, R/o: Mankeshwar, Tq.Bhoom, District Osmanabad. RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4999 OF 2011 The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Through its Divisional Controller, Near Ambedkar Putala, Osmanabad, Tq. and Dist.Osmanabad. PETITIONER VERSUS Shri Narhari Kundlika Parade, Age: 45 years, Occu. : Service, R/o Indapur, Tq.Kallamb, District Osmanabad. RESPONDENT 8 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5000 OF 2011 The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Through its Divisional Controller, Near Ambedkar Putala, Osmanabad, Tq. and Dist.Osmanabad. PETITIONER VERSUS Shri Subhash Rangnath Sathe, Age : 45 years, Occu. : Service, R/o : Sathe Nagar, Bhoom, Tq.Bhoom, District Osmanabad. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5001 OF 2011 The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Through its Divisional Controller, Near Ambedkar Putala, Osmanabad, Tq. and Dist.Osmanabad. PETITIONER VERSUS Shri Ankush Bhagwat Andhare, Age: 45 years, Occu. : Service, R/o : Mankeshwar, Tq.Bhoom, District Osmanabad. RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5002 OF 2011 9 The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Through its Divisional Controller, Near Ambedkar Putala, Osmanabad, Tq. and Dist.Osmanabad. PETITIONER VERSUS Shri Ganpat Pralhad More, Age : 51 years, Occu. : Service, R/o : Jalkot, Jijau Nagar, Tq.Tuljapur, District Osmanabad. RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5003 OF 2011 The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Through its Divisional Controller, Near Ambedkar Putala, Osmanabad, Tq. and Dist.Osmanabad. PETITIONER VERSUS Shri Udhavrao Kalyanrao Bharate, Age:48 years, Occu. : Service, R/o : Para, Tq.Kallamb, District Osmanabad. RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5004 OF 2011 The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Through its Divisional Controller, 10 Near Ambedkar Putala, Osmanabad, Tq. and Dist.Osmanabad. PETITIONER VERSUS Shri Sattar Ibrahim Shaikh, Age :50 years, Occu.: Service, R/o : Washi, Tq.Washi, District Osmanabad. RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5005 OF 2011 The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Through its Divisional Controller, Near Ambedkar Putala, Osmanabad, Tq. and Dist.Osmanabad. PETITIONER VERSUS Vasant Narsing Autade, Age: 57 years, Occu.: Service, R/o Laxmi Nagar, Bhoom, Tq.Bhoom, District: Osmanabad. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5006 OF 2011 The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Through its Divisional Controller, Near Ambedkar Putala, Osmanabad, 11 Tq. and Dist. Osmanabad. PETITIONER VERSUS Shri Subhash Sopan Katkar, Age: 49 years, Occu. :Service, R/o : Laxmi Nagar, Bhoom, Tq.Bhoom, District Osmanabad. RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5007 OF 2011 The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Through its Divisional Controller, Near Ambedkar Putala, Osmanabad, Tq. and Dist. Osmanabad. PETITIONER VERSUS Shri Subhash Basayya Swami, Age: 52 years, Occu. : Service, R/o : Lohgaon, Tq.Tuljapur, District Osmanabad. RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5008 OF 2011 The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Through its Divisional Controller, Near Ambedkar Putala, Osmanabad, Tq. and Dist. Osmanabad. PETITIONER 12 VERSUS Shri Bhimrao Viresh Chingunde Age: 50 years, Occu. : Service, R/o : Nandgaon, Tq.Tuljapur, District Osmanabad. RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5009 OF 2011 The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Through its Divisional Controller, Near Ambedkar Putala, Osmanabad, Tq. and Dist. Osmanabad. PETITIONER VERSUS Shri Dattatraya Mahadeo Kadam, Age: 45 years, Occu.:Service, R/o : Indapur, Tq.Washi, District Osmanabad. RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. D.S.Bagul, Advocate for Petitioner. Mrs.Renuka B.Ghule Palve, and Mr. A.S.Bayas, Advocate for Respondent No.1. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 12.09.2011. 13 JUDGMENT : 1. All these Writ Petitions involve common question of fact and law and as such are decided together. 2. The Respondents herein are the employees of the petitioner Corporation, filed a complaint against the petitioner before the Industrial Court, Latur with a grievance that inspite of completion of 180 days on daily wages, the petitioner is not giving the benefits as per the settlement arrived at on 24.5.1956, more particularly, clause 49 of 1956 Settlement. The petitioner resisted the said application, inter alia, contending that all benefits as stated in said Resolution 49 of 1956 were given and extended to the employees subject to satisfying, fulfilling the eligibility criteria and all conditions prescribed for the entitlement in the terms of the Resolution No.8856 and clause 19 of 1985 Settlement. The Industrial Court partly allowed the complaint. Aggrieved thereby, the present petitions are filed. 2. Mr.Bagul, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Full Bench of this Court had held that clause 49 of 1956 Settlement operates in totally different 14 field from clause 19 of 1985 Settlement inasmuch as former relates to the scale of pay, whereas the later pertains to absorption of daily rated workers. It was further held that Resolution No.8856 is unenforceable and not binding on the Respondents-employees. Against the said judgment, the petitioner preferred SLP before the Apex Court and submits that the Apex Court has not quashed and set aside Resolution No.8856 dated 3l.8.1978 but held that eligibility criteria as laid down in Resolution 8856 has to be satisfied by the employee to be entitled to the benefits of Resolution 49 of 1956. According to the learned counsel, after the judgment of the Apex Court, the petitioner Corporation issued a Circular dated 3.12.2007, which was modified by another Circular dated 6.2.2009, laying down that the judgment of the Apex Court shall be implemented and since the Hon'ble Apex Court has not quashed and set aside the Resolution No.8856 dated 31.8.1978, all the workmen who had completed 180 days aggregate service in a financial year and are appointed temporarily in ephemeral vacancy shall be entitled for the time pay-scale. Other than this, they shall be entitled to the benefits as stated in II-A(2) of Resolution No.8856 dated 3l.8.1978. The learned counsel further submitted that benefits were extended to the employees as stated in the Circular and as such the Industrial Court could not 15 have partly allowed the said complaint. The learned counsel also relied on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court at its Bench at Nagpur, delivered on 4.5.2007 in W.P.No.888/2004 with other connected Writ Petitions and submits that even the learned Single Judge of this Court has also held as contended by the petitioner. 3. Per contra, Mr.Bayas, and Mrs.Palwe, learned counsels for Respondents submit that Full Bench of this Court had specifically held that clause 49 of 1956 Settlement is not cancelled and the same is applicable and clause 19 of 1985 Settlement operates in a different field and does not supersede clause 49 of 1956 Settlement and as per the same, the Respondents are entitled to the benefits. The learned counsel contends that the other employees after the judgment of the Apex Court in the Special Leave Petition have been granted benefits as is held by the Full Bench of this Court in a case of "Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Nagpur Vs. Premlal S/o Khatri Gajbhiye" reported in 2004 (2) Bom. C.R. 338 and as such the petitioner is bound by its act. It can not discriminate. The Industrial Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment. 16 4. In fact, the issue in the present petitions is no longer res-integra in view of dictum of the Full Bench of this Court in a case of "Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation,Nagpur Vs. Premlal S/o Khatri Gajbhiye" referred supra, the judgment of the Apex Court and the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court at Nagpur in W.P.No.888/2004 with other connected Writ Petitions. 5. The Full Bench of this Court in a case of "Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Nagpur Vs. Premlal S/o Khatri Gajbhiye" referred supra in para 15 held thus : "15........ However, while deciding this issue, one can not overlook the basic difference between the concept which was sought to be introduced by clause 49 of 1956 settlement and the one which was introduced by way of Clause 19 of 1985 settlement. The former related to grant of time scale of pay and all the benefits available to the time scale workers to those who had completed 180 days continuously including weekly offs and 17 other holidays, while the latter referred to the issue of absorption of daily rated workmen on completion of 180 days of continuous service. Needless to say that there are totally two different concepts relating to the mode of employment. In the absence of a specific clause in the 1985 settlement disclosing a clear understanding on the part of the parties to settlement to replace Clause 49 of 1956 settlement by Clause 19 of 1985 settlement, there could be no justification to agree and accept the contention in that regard sought to be advanced on behalf of the appellants...... Being so, the contention of the appellant that Clause 19 of 1985 settlement replaces the Clause 49 of 1956 settlement was rightly rejected by the learned Single Judges and we have no hesitation in agreeing with the said view taken by the learned Single Judges in the matter" 4. In paragraph 16 of the said judgment the Full bench then held as under : 18 "16. As regards the Resolution No. 8856 of the Corporation and the one preceded by it that of Joint Committee in relation to cancellation of Clause 49 of 1956 settlement, it is to be noted that the Division Bench in Mohammad Fasahatullah Khan's case, as already observed above, had held that the settlement of 1968 discloses that the parties had agreed for division of Charter of demands into two parts, namely, monetary demands and non-monetary demands and while the monetary demands were discussed and referred in the settlement, the non-monetary demands were left for discussion and settlement by the Joint Committee. The said view has been clearly reiterated by learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and has further explained that the preamble and the Clause 9 of the settlement clearly reveals that as there were altogether 64 demands, it was seen that it would take a longer time and as such there ought to be a package deal covering the four major demands which 19 are relating to financial matters and remaining demands were referred to the Joint Committee which had jurisdiction to decide the issue pertaining to non- financial matters and that the issue pertaining to the demand relating to the time scale of pay being a demand pertaining to financial matters, it was not permissible for the Joint Committee to decide about the same. In fact the detail discussion on this aspect by the learned Single Judge coupled with the one by the Division Bench in Mohammad Fasahatullah Khan's case does not warrant any further adjudication on the said issue. Suffice to say that we are in respectful agreement with the Division bench as well as the learned Single Judge in that regard. Indeed proper reading of Clause 9 and the preamble of the said settlement clearly reveals that out of 64 demands, four demands pertaining to the revision of pay scale, linking of Dearness Allowance with the costs of living index, increase in existing allowance and grant of new 20 allowance and arbitration in disputes relating to bonus calculations were excluded from being left out for the decision by the Joint Committee and this apparently discloses that the Joint Committee was not authorised to deal with any financial matters as such and certainly not in relation to changes in the service conditions which were stipulated under Clause 49 of 1956 settlement." In paragraph 17 of the judgment, the full bench held as under : "17............ Every expression in the settlement has to be read in the context in which it has been used and not otherwise. Being so, the contention on behalf of the appellant that Clause 9 empowered the Joint Committee to deal with the issue in relation to the service conditions agreed upon under Clause 49 of 1956 settlement is to be 21 rejected and in that regard no fault can be found in the finding arrived at by the learned Single Judge." 5. The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation took up the matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in several Special Leave Petitions. The Hon'ble Apex Court on 27.2.2007 finally decided the Appeal Civil No.1046/2007 with several Special Leave Petitions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while examining the full bench judgment of this Court, in the said judgment has observed as under : "According to impugned judgment Clause 49 of 1956 Settlement and Clause 19 of 1985 Settlement operated in different fields and consequently Clause 19 of 1985 Settlement did not supersede Clause 49 of 1956 Settlement. Broadly, we agree with the decision of the High Court. In our view, there is a difference between the status of 22 an employer on one hand and the benefits accruing to the workmen on the other hand. As stated above, in 1956 the Union presented to the Corporation various demands. One of the demands was abolition of the daily wage system. Under Clause 49 of 1956 the Corporation agreed to give to the workmen all the benefits available to a time scale worker. On the other hand, under Clause 19 of 1985 Settlement subject to a worker fulfilling the eligibility criteria, the Corporation agreed to absorb daily rated workmen who completed 180 days of service. Therefore, the High Court was right in holding that the above two Clauses operated in different fields and, therefore, there was no question of Clause 19 of 1985 Settlement superseding Clause 49 of 1956 Settlement. Under Clause 49 of 1956 Settlement, the 23 Corporation agreed to provide benefits to employees working for 180 days continuously to be given all benefits available to time scale workers. The grievance of the workmen in the present case is that till today the Corporation has not given to them the benefits available to time scale workers. In the present case,they are not seeking absorption. In the present case, they are seeking wages payable to time scale workers. The topic of absorption is covered by Clause 19 of 1985 Settlement. It states that in all past cases all daily wagers who are eligible for absorption will be given absorption subject to their selection by the competent Select Committee and subject to existence of clear vacancies. This aspect was not there in Clause 49 of 1956 Settlement. Therefore, the High Court was 24 right in holding that the two clauses operated in different fields. We agree with this conclusion of the High Court in the impugned judgment." Hon'ble Supreme Court in subsequent paragraph then observed as under : "However, as stated above, we are required also to consider the effect of Resolution NO.8856 dated 3l.8.78 passed by the Corporation under which Clause 49 of 1956 Settlement stood cancelled. It is true that the Union had agreed to the cancellation of Clause 49. However, the Union had also placed their demand for substitution of Clause 49 and the Corporation agreed to that substitution vide Resolution No.8856 passed by the Corporation under which persons in employment casually or on daily wages as on the date of the Resolution as also those who were to be employed thereafter, were entitled to be 25 appointed temporarily in ephemeral vacancies in the time scale of pay on completion of 180 days aggregate service in a financial year. Under the said Resolution they were entitled to the benefits admissible to regular employees on time scale of pay subject to their satisfying the conditions prescribed for the entitlement. As stated above, in the present case the workmen are not seeking absorption. They are seeking benefits admissible to regular employees on time scale of pay. In the present case, the workmen seek benefits admissible to those employees on time scale of pay. In the present case, the respondent-workmen are in service after 3l.8.78. In the circumstances, notwithstanding cancellation of Clause 49 of 1956 Settlement the workmen herein would be entitled to all benefits admissible to regular employees working in the Corporation on time scale of pay provided they satisfy the eligibility criteria of having worked for aggregate service of 26 180 days and subject to their satisfying all the conditions prescribed for their entitlement in terms of the above Resolution No.8856 read with Clause 19 of 1985 Settlement." 6. The learned Single Judge of this Court at its Bench at Nagpur while deciding a group of Writ Petitions bearing W.P.No.888/2004 with other companion Writ Petitions vide its judgment dated 4.5.2007 held as under : "7. In this view of the matter, the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation is directed to provide all the benefits admissible to regular employees working in the Corporation on time scale of pay provided they satisfy the eligibility criterion of having worked for aggregate service of 180 days and subject to their satisfying all the conditions prescribed for their entitlement in terms of resolution No.8856 read with Clause 19 of 1985 Settlement." 7. There is no reason for me to hold a different 27 view than held by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.888/2004 referred supra. The present Writ Petitions are as such disposed of on the same terms as laid down in para 7 of the judgment delivered on 4.5.2007 by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No. 888/2004 with connected Writ Petitions. 8. The Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp498501