vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5606 OF 1996 WRIT PETITION NO.5606 OF 1996 WRIT PETITION NO.5606 OF 1996 Pune Mahanagar Palika Kamgar Sanghatana ... Petitioner V/s. Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. ... Respondents Mrs.Neeta Karnik for Petitioner Mr.R.G. Ketkar for Respondent No.1 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. J. J. DATED: DECEMBER 1, 2006 DECEMBER 1, 2006 DECEMBER 1, 2006 ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: . This Petition challenges the order of the Industrial Court dismissing the complaint filed under Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. The workmen represented by the Petitioner were working as Pump Operators with the Maharashtra Water Supply and Sewerage Board (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘Board’) . These employees were being paid wages in the scale of Rs.920-1080. In the year 1989, the employees of the Board were taken over by the Pune Municipal Corporation, the Respondent herein. The Pump Operators working with the Board were doing the same kind of work as Assistant Electricians who were employed with the Pune Municipal Corporation (for short, hereinafter referred to as "Corporation"). There was no difference : 2 : whatsoever with the nature of work that they performed. When the services of these employees were taken over by the Corporation, they were assured that they would get the same service benefits as the employees of the Corporation. They were also assured that their basic wages would not be reduced. Accordingly, after their services were taken over by the Corporation, the employees drew the same basic wages as were being paid to them by the Board. However, in the year 1991 i.e., 2 years after the Pump Operators of the erstwhile Board became employees of the Corporation, the payscale for Assistant Electricians was revised to Rs.1080-2470. However, the Corporation decided to treat Pump Operators whose services were taken over by it as a separate class and continued to pay them the wages in the payscale of Rs.920-1900. 2. Aggrieved by this decision of the Corporation, the employees moved the Industrial Court by preferring a complaint under the MRTU & PULP Act. This complaint was registered as complaint (ULP) No.7 of 1993. The complaint was filed on behalf of the workers whose names were enlisted in Annexure A to the complaint. The main grievance made out by the Petitioners in the complaint was that the employees who were working as Pump Operators with the Board and whose services were taken : 3 : over, were not being given a fair deal and were discriminated against by the Corporation. It was contended that the Corporation’s Assistant Electricians were doing the work of the same nature as the Pump Operators and therefore, they ought to have been paid the same payscales as were being paid to the Assistant Electricians. It was therefore, pleaded that an unfair labour practice has been committed by the Respondent under Items 5 and 9 of the Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. 3. Respondent No.1 filed its written statement contending that the post of Assistant Electrician could not be equated with that of the Pump Operator and therefore the payscales payable to the workmen working in the two posts were different. It was further pleaded that by a settlement with the Board the Union had agreed that the services of the workmen should be taken over by the Corporation and that the service conditions of the Corporation would be made applicable to the employees from the Board. It was further agreed that there would be no reduction in the basic wages after the services were taken over by the Corporation. The Respondent No.1 contended that it had abided with all the terms and conditions which had been stipulated prior to the employees of the Board being transferred to the : 4 : Corporation. It was, therefore, pleaded that the Pump Operators whose services were taken over from the erstwhile Board had no right to the payscale of Rs.1080-2470 which was payable to the Assistant Electricians with the Corporation. It was therefore, pleaded that an unfair labour practice has been committed by the Respondent No.1 under Items 5 and 9 of the Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. 4. Evidence was led by the Petitioners by examining one Pump Operator and one Assistant Electrician. Both these workmen have categorically stated in their evidence that they were doing the same kind of work and that there was no difference in their duties or the responsibilities which were cast on them by the Corporation in respect of the work which they performed. The cross-examination of these witnesses has not elicited any contradictions and therefore, the evidence of these workmen is credible and can be accepted. Significantly, the Corporation has chosen not to lead any evidence in the matter. 5. The Industrial Court after considering the evidence on record has held that though the Pump Operators were performing the same kind of work and had the same duties as the Assistant Electricians after they : 5 : were transferred to the Corporation, they could not claim the same payscale. The Industrial Court observed that it was a settled position that in the case of a transfer of employees from one sector to another some discrepancies in respect of the designations and wages was bound to arise. The same status cannot be sought by the employees. The Industrial Court has observed that the main factor which is required to be noticed is whether the same type of work is being performed and whether the transferred employee is being paid the wages that he was being paid prior to his transfer. The Industrial Court was of the view that since the wages of the Pump Operators had been revised by the Board, a few months prior to their transfer to the Corporation, they were not entitled to any further revision. The Industrial Court then observed that when the transfer took place in 1989, the pay of the employees was protected and the workmen were fixed in the payscale of Rs.920-1900. Thereafter, according to the Industrial Court, the workmen were not entitled to any further revision and would continue to remain in the same payscale irrespective of the fact that the wages for the employees of the Corporation had been revised. 6. A bare perusal of the evidence on record indicates as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel : 6 : for the Petitioner that Pump Operators from the erstwhile Board and the Assistant Electricians do the same kind of work, perform the same duties and have the same responsibilities. However, the two are being treated as different classes without there being any reason for doing so. The evidence on record also establishes the fact that the qualifications for being adopted a Pump Operator or an Assistant Electrician are the same. They have to pass a Wireman’s Examination with a second class. That being the position, it is not understood as to how there can be any difference in the payscale. Once the employees of the Board were taken over by the Corporation, all parties had agreed to extend the same benefits and the same service conditions that being paid to the Corporation employees. The only condition which was stipulated at the time of their transfer to the Corporation was that the Pump Operators’ basic pay would be protected and there would be no reduction in their basic pay. However, this does not in any manner mean that they could not be paid a payscale which was higher than that which were drawing with the Board. In any event, once their services were taken over in 1989 and they became employees of the Corporation there was no reason to draw this invidious classification between the Assistant Electricians and the Pump Operators. The distinction sought to be drawn : 7 : by the Corporation is without any basis or justification and is against the doctrine of ‘equal pay for equal work’. This philosophy is given effect to by the provisions of Item 5 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act which stipulate that an employer who shows favouritism to one set of workmen, regardless of merit commits an unfair labour practice. The Board by drawing such a classification has shown favouritism to the Assistant Electricians vis a vis the Pump Operators, without any nexus to merit. In such circumstances, the Industrial Court was in error in concluding that there was no unfair labour practice on the part of the Corporation. 7. The Union representative who was examined by the Petitioner has pointed out in his deposition that while fixing the wages of the Pump Operators, the length of services with the Board has not been considered by the Corporation. He has deposed that the workmen who were working for a shorter period with the Corporation were getting a higher wage than those who had been employed for a longer period with the Board and whose services had been taken over by the Corporation. This was so despite the fact that both the Board and the Corporation had assured the workmen when they were transferred that their past service with the Board would be taken into : 8 : reckoning by the Corporation. No separate seniority list was maintained in respect of these two categories according to this witness. Therefore, it does not stand to reason as to why the two categories should be paid differently. Further, admittedly, the Pump Operators and the Assistant Electricians are now being paid the same payscales. 8. In my view, therefore, the Industrial Court was incorrect in dismissing the Complaint and denying any relief to the workmen enlisted in the annexure to the Complaint. 9. In the result, the impugned order is set aside. Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). No order as to costs.