WP/756/1999 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.756 OF 1999 Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai .. Petitioners V/s. Bombay Municipal Nursing & Paramedical Staff Union & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. N.V. Walawalkar, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. M.M. Malvankar for the Petitioners. Mr. Prakash Devdas for Respondent Nos.6, 8, 9, 10 to 15 & 17. Ms. Seema Sarnaik for Respondent No.16. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 7 TH JULY, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. The Writ Petition challenges the order dated 4th September, 1998, passed by the Arbitrator, who had been appointed under Section 10A of the Industrial Disputes Act, in Reference (V.A.) No.1 of 1995. By this order, the applications filed by the petitioners seeking amendments to their written statements have been dismissed and the amendments sought have been disallowed. WP/756/1999 : 2 : 2. The controversy in the present Writ Petition has arisen as follows : 3. In 1995, the Petitioners and the respondent- Unions agreed to appoint an Arbitrator under Section 10A of the Industrial Disputes Act for adjudication of certain disputes pending between the Corporation and its employees. Accordingly, by a Notification which was published in the Government Gazette, an Arbitrator was appointed. The respondent Nos.1 to 51 applied for interim reliefs before the Arbitrator by their applications dated 16th February, 1996. It appears that parties agreed to certain terms by way of interim relief during the pendency of these applications- proceedings. The Arbitrator, has therefore, passed Award Part I in terms of the settlement which was arrived at between the parties. This Award was published on 7th August, 1997. Thereafter, a Writ Petition was preferred. It appears that part of the Award, which extended benefits of settlement in respect of individual housing loans to Municipal Employees’ Co-operative Housing Societies and for WP/756/1999 : 3 : housing in areas beyond the jurisdiction of the petitioners, was stayed by this Court in Writ Petition No.4204 of 1997. Admittedly, the petitioners have implemented the rest of the Award. Thereafter applications were submitted by the petitioners for leave to amend their written statements. The amendment which the petitioners applied for was to the effect that some of the employees covered by the Reference were not ‘workmen’, as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and therefore the Reference was not maintainable qua those employees. 4. The Arbitrator has dismissed these applications and hence the present Writ Petition has been preferred by the petitioners. 5. The Arbitrator has dismissed these applications firstly, on the ground that no particular category of workmen was mentioned in the Reference. It has been held that the issue as to whether all the employees involved in the dispute are governed by section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act or not WP/756/1999 : 4 : was not raised when the written statement was filed or when Award Part I was passed. This Award was made applicable to all the employees irrespective of the category in which they were placed or the post held by them or the salary drawn by them. The Arbitrator has therefore held that the applications for amendment are clearly an after thought and dismissed the same. 6. After considering the submissions of the parties before him, the Arbitrator, in my opinion, has rightly dismissed the applications filed by the petitioners. The two demands which are referred for arbitration are in respect of the scheme for housing loans and time bound promotion/upgradation of the municipal employees. The Arbitrator has rightly held that the word used in the arbitration agreement which was notified and in the Reference is “employees” and not “workmen”. The Arbitrator has also held that assuming some of the persons are not “workmen” as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the benefits of Award Part I have already been extended to them. Moreover, WP/756/1999 : 5 : factually both the petitioners and the Unions had considered all the categories of employees who are before the Arbitrator as ‘workmen’, as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Several settlements have been arrived at between the petitioners and the respondents-Unions in respect of these employees. The Arbitrator has considered the fact that there is no legal bar on the part of the employer to extend the benefits given to the workmen to those who do not fit into that description. The Arbitrator has rightly held that some of the employees cannot be considered as workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act. He has then concluded that because Award Part I has been extended to them and various settlements have been signed in the past qua these employees, the petitioners seeking amendment to their written statements at this stage does not arise. 7. In my opinion, the learned Arbitrator has passed a well reasoned order refusing the permission for amendment. I see no reason to take a different view, specially since the earlier WP/756/1999 : 6 : settlements and Award Part I in the present Arbitration have been implemented by the petitioners qua all employees irrespective of their status as “workmen”. Besides, the disputes have been referred for arbitration by an agreement between the parties. The Corporation was well aware that the dispute covered all categories of Municipal employees, despite which it agreed to a joint reference for arbitration. 8. The Writ Petition is dismissed. 9. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. 10. On the request made by Mr. Walawalkar, the learned Advocate for the petitioners, the interim order granted earlier to continue for a period of four weeks from today.