WP/1843/1998 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1843 OF 1998 Executive Engineer, Agricultural Construction Division, Mumbai ... Petitioner V/s. Gopichand Thakurdas, Decd., Thru’ Mayadevi G. Hassija & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. P.G. Sawant, AGP, for the Petitioner. Mr. N.M. Ganguli for Respondent Nos.1 to 8. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE : 24 TH JANUARY, 2011. ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. This Writ Petition has been filed against the Award dated 3rd November, 1997 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai in Reference (IT) No.184 of 1990. The Reference has been allowed and the State Government has been directed to classify the workmen concerned in the Reference as “Pump Attendants” and to pay them benefits of this post from their dates of joining. 2. An industrial dispute was raised on behalf of ten workmen, i.e. the respondents herein, seeking their classifications as “Pump Attendants” and payment of benefits attached to that post from the date of joining. As the demand was not conceded by the petitioner, a Reference was made by the Appropriate Government to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute. 3. The workmen filed their statement of claim contending that all of them had been appointed as “Mazdoors”. However, from their respective dates of appointment, each one of them had been performing the task of a “Pump WP/1843/1998 2 Attendant”. The pay scale payable to the “Mazdoor” was far less than for the grade of “Pump Attendant”. The workmen also contended that other workmen who were doing the same work as them, of switching on the pumps and shutting down the pumps, besides other work, were classified as “Pump Attendants” and were paid wages accordingly. They pleaded that there was no difference in work performed by them and the other workmen and, therefore, they were entitled to equal pay for equal work. 4. The petitioner filed a written statement on 10th May, 1991 contending that the Reference was not maintainable since the dispute was not espoused by a majority of the workmen working in the Aarey Milk Dairy, where the workmen were employed. It was contended that the demand raised by the workmen was in fact a demand raised for promotion and not for reclassification. It was further pleaded that since the workmen concerned were Daily Rated Mazdoors who would be absorbed in the regular scale after completion of five years as a “Mazdoor” which was equivalent to the post of “Pump Operator”. It was further contended that the duties prescribed for “Pump Operators” and “Pump Attendants” were different and, therefore, the workmen could not be classified as “Pump Attendants”. 5. Three workmen deposed before the Industrial Tribunal in support of the demands raised by the workmen. In their depositions, they reiterated the contentions raised by them in the statement of claim. They described the nature of work that they performed. According to them, on reporting for work, they were required to start the pumps, check the water level, record the capacity of water in the register, open the valves of the pumps and to ensure a continuous water supply to the Dairy. The workers have stated in their evidence that there were about 20 to 25 other workmen who were doing the same work as themselves. However, those workmen were paid a higher salary by treating them as a “Pump Attendants”, while the respondents-workmen were classified as “Mazdoors”. The WP/1843/1998 3 petitioner chose not to cross examine to witnesses of the respondents. The testimony of the third witness was not shaken in the cross examination. No oral evidence was led by the petitioner to rebut the evidence led by the workmen. 6. Considering the evidence on record, the Industrial Tribunal has allowed the Reference. The Industrial Tribunal has observed that the petitioner had not denied the fact that the respondents were performing the job of workmen belonging to another category ever since they joined duty with the petitioner. According to the petitioner, however, the duty performed by the workmen was that of a “Pump Operator”, while the workmen contended that they were performing the duty of a “Pump Attendant”. The Industrial Tribunal has noted that the petitioner had not made any attempt to place on record the pay scales for gradation of categories of posts available in the establishment, nor was any attempt made to place on record the emoluments available to a “Pump Operator”. Certain documents had been placed on record by the workmen showing the trades, grades and categories of workmen employed in Class III and Class IV in the establishment. The Industrial Tribunal has held that from these documents it was clear that there was no post of “Pump Operator” but of a “Pump Attendant”. A Circular dated 22nd July, 1997, which was produced by the workmen, indicated that the petitioner had confirmed the workmen who were performing duties of a “Pump Attendant”. The Industrial Tribunal, therefore, accepted the evidence of the workmen and concluded that the respondents, though appointed as “Mazdoors”, had worked continuously from their respective dates of joining as “Pump Attendants”. The Industrial Tribunal, therefore, granted the relief to the workmen. 7. In my opinion, the Award of the Industrial Tribunal cannot be faulted as it is based on the evidence on record. The petitioner did not care to lead any evidence to rebut the evidence of the respondents that they were working as “Pump Attendants”. The learned AGP appearing for the petitioner has not brought to my notice any relevant documents indicating that the grade of “Pump WP/1843/1998 4 Operator” existed in the establishment and that, therefore, the respondents- workmen ought to have been considered as “Pump Operators” and not “Pump Attendants”. 8. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. 9. The Petitioner shall implement the Award dated 3rd November, 1997, passed by the Industrial Tribunal at Mumbai in Reference (IT) No.184 of 1990, within a period of twelve weeks from today. 10. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.