1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1003 OF 2009 Divisional Controller, MSRTC, Aurangabad. .. Petitioner Versus Dattatray S/o. Baburao Katkar .. Respondents --- Mr. M.K. Goyanka, Advocate for petitioner Mr. A.K. Gawali, Advocate for respondent CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 9TH JUNE, 2009. ORAL ORDER :- 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 10th September, 2008, passed by the learned Labour Court, Aurangabad, in Application IDA No. 5/2005, hereby directing the petitioner to pay the amount mentioned in Schedule A towards towards the difference of pay to the respondent. 2. Shri Goyanka, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned Labour Court 2 grossly erred in holding that the respondent was entitled to the same salary as that of Shri P.D. Anap, inasmuch as, he was appointed 1 year prior to the respondent. 3. Shri Gawali, learned counsel for respondent on the contrary submits that the learned Labour Court has rightly allowed the application on the ground that the petitioner Corporation is paying lesser salary to the respondent after 1988. 4.` Perusal of the record would reveal that both, said Shri Anap and the present respondent were appointed as Junior Assistant on 11th March, 1972, the name of the complainant could be found at Sr. No.8, whereas, the name of said Shri P.D. Anap could be found at Sr. No.9. It has been found that till 1988, both of them were getting the same salary. It has further been found that only from 1/4/1988, there is a discrepancy in the salary of the respondent and said Shri P.D. Anap. In that view of the matter, the learned Labour Court has found that the petitioner had erred in paying lesser salary to the complainant/respondent and as such, the amount of difference between the salary paid to the complainant and said Shri P.D. Anap has been directed to be paid. 5. No perversity could be found with the approach adopted so as to warrant interference in the 3 extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Hence, the writ petition is rejected. 6. It is reported that though the order is passed on 10th September, 2008 and though there was no stay in the present proceeding, the amount has not yet been paid. When the orders are passed by the competent courts, the authorities are bound to comply the same especially when there is no stay to the same. In that view of the matter, the petitioner Corporation is directed to pay the amount as directed by the learned Labour Court within two weeks from today. [B.R. GAVAI, J.] /home/grt/9june9/wp1003.09