Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6254 OF 2010 Mumbai Mahanagarpalika Karyalayeen Karmachari Sanghatana ... Petitioner v/s Municipal Corpn. Of Gr.Mumbai & ors. ... Respondents Mr.Prakash S. Devdas for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Pakale with Mr.M.M.Malvankar for the respondent Corporation. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 11TH AUGUST, 2010 P.C.: 1. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Industrial Court on 5.5.2010 by which the Industrial Court has refused to grant interim relief to the petitioner. The petitioner union has contended that there was a long standing practice of over 100 years that all employees irrespective of their age would be eligible to compete for the post of Ward/Octroi Inspectors. According to the petitioner, the Corporation has changed this custom, usage, privilege and practice by prescribing an age limit for the candidates who wished to apply for the post. The change was sought to be brought about without issuing a notice under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioners, therefore, filed the complaint under Item 9 Schedule IV of the M..R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, contending that this action of the Corporation amounted to a failure to implement an award, settlement or agreement. It is now well settled that a failure to implement the statutory provisions of law would also attract the provisions of Item 9 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act. It has been so held in the case of S.G.Chemicals & Dyes Trading Employees v/s S.G. Chemical Ltd., reported in 1986 1 L.L.J. 490. 2. The Industrial Court has refused interim relief on the ground that this was a change in the policy of the Corporation which need not be preceded by a notice under Section 9A. Prima facie, this finding of the Industrial Court is erroneous. Therefore, the order passed by the Industrial Court is set aside and the following order is passed as an interim arrangement during the pendency of the complaint:- (i) The interviews scheduled for the post of Ward/Octroi Inspectors by the Corporation will proceed as per the schedule. However, all candidates will be informed that in case they are selected, it would be subject to the result in the present complaint. (ii) The Corporation shall hold interviews in respect of 57 employees whose application forms have been rejected. These interviews shall be held within one month from today. The results of these 57 employees will be kept in abeyance till the complaint is decided. (iii) It is made clear that the results of these interviews will be subject to the result of the complaint. All appointees who are selected shall be informed that their appointment to the post of Ward/Octroi Inspector is subject to the result in Complaint (ULP) No.144 of 2010. (iv) The complaint to be decided within six months from today. All contentions of the parties are left open. 3. Writ petition disposed of accordingly. .....