1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.905 of 2008 Administrative Officer, Municipal Corporation School Board, Nashik Municipal Corporation & anr. Petitioners Vs. Mr.Lalit Dattatraya Jantre Respondent With Writ Petition No.908 of 2008 Administrative Officer, Municipal Corporation School Board, Nashik Municipal Corporation & anr. Petitioners Vs. Mr.Vasant Tulsiram Aher Respondent With Writ Petition No.911 of 2008 Administrative Officer, Municipal Corporation School Board, Nashik Municipal Corporation & anr. Petitioners Vs. Mr.Vijay Ramdas Nerkar Respondent Ms.Manisha Shekhar i/b. M/s. J.Shekhar & Co. for petitioners. Mr.Anilkumar Patilfor respondents in all the petitions. 2 CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE, J. March 3, 2008 P.C. 1. All these three petitions arise from the orders passed by the Industrial Court at Nashik on 26/10/2007 thereby allowing Complaint (ULP) Nos.120/2003, 116/2003 and 118/2003 respectively. Each of the respondents in the present petitions had approached the Industrial Court by filing a complaint of unfair labour practice under Items 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV read with Section 28(1) of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 ("the Act" for short) and alleged that initially they were working as Kamathi under the School Education Board of Devlali Cantonment and on the formation of the Nashik Municipal Corporation in the year 1982 they were absorbed as the employees of the School Board of Nashik Municipal Corporation. Initially they were working as Kamathis under the Petitioner - Corporation and subsequently the Corporation passed resolutions to promote them as Junior Clerks and then they wee assigned the duty of clerical work. They were not paid the salary as applicable to the post of Junior Clerk. As per them the pay-scale of Junior Clerk was Rs.4000-6000, whereas the pay-scale for the post of Kamathi was 3 Rs.3050-4590 at the relevant time. In the trial of the complaints, each of the complainants had stepped in the witness box but as far as the Corporation is concerned it filed the Written Statement disputing the claim but no one stepped in the witness box on behalf of the Corporation. The Industrial Court allowed the complaints partly and held that the Corporation and its officials were guilty of unfair labour practice under Items 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Act and directed to pay the difference in wages as applicable to the post of Junior Clerk and Kamathi for the period from March 1996 to 28/3/2003. The Industrial Court on the basis of the evidence on record noted that the Municipal Corporation passed Resolution No.215 on 29/5/1990 granting promotions to the complainants to the post of Junior Clerk and from the post of Kamathi. Resolution No.397 was passed on 31/8/1993 again to the same effect. Third resolution was passed by the Education Board. i.e. Board Resolution No.247 dated 30/9/1995 and by the said Resolution the complainants were assigned the work of clerical category and it was made clear that it was subject to the sanction of pay scales to the post of Junior Clerk. The Education Board issued an order on 14/3/1996 directing the complainants to work as 4 Assistants to Junior Clerks from 14/3/1996. It appears an undertaking was also obtained from the complainants that they will continue to work as Junior Clerks but will be paid salary in the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590 which is applicable to the post of Kamathi. The Board passed yet another Resolution on 31/8/2003 recommending the complainants to be promoted to the post of Junior Clerk and the proposal to be submitted to the State Government for creation of new posts. 2. So far as the resolutions are concerned, they were not disputed by the petitioner-Corporation at any time. The Industrial Court very specifically observed that the relief of permanency or regularisation could not be granted by it and such a relief is always subject to the availability of regular vacancies, the mode of selection and other eligibility criteria etc. The Industrial Court, therefore, confined its decision to granting difference in salary based on the nature of work and more particularly because there was nothing on record brought by the present petitioners to show that from March 1996 any of the complainants was not working on the clerical post and all of them continued to carry 5 out the duties of Kamathi. It was under these circumstances the Industrial Court directed the present petitioners to pay the difference in wages as applicable to the post of Junior Clerk and Kamathi for the period from March 1996 to 28/3/2003. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner - Corporation has relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & ors. Vs. Umadevi [(2006) 4 SCC 1] [(2006) 4 SCC 1] [(2006) 4 SCC 1] and Marathwada Agricultural University & ors. Vs. Marathwada Krishi Vidyapith, M.S.K.S. & ors. [AIR [AIR [AIR 2007 2007 2007 SC 2969] SC 2969] SC 2969]. The learned counsel also relied upon the decisions of this Court in the case of Punjabrao Krishi Vidyapeeth, Akola Vs. General Secretary, Krishi Vidyapeeth Kamgar Union & ors. [1994 I CLR [1994 I CLR [1994 I CLR 913] 913] 913] as well as an unreported order passed by this Court on 4/12/2007 in Writ Petition No.1261 of 1999 and other connected petitions. As has been noted earlier, the relief of permanency for regularisation has not been considered by the Industrial Court in the impugned orders and all that the Industrial Court has granted is the difference in salary as applicable to the post of Junior Clerk and Kamathi and that too on the basis of the resolution passed by the 6 Municipal Corporation Education Board as referred to hereinabove and more particularly the last resolution dated 31/8/2003 and the order dated 14/3/1996. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners are facing financial difficulties. This by itself cannot be a reason to cause interference with the impugned orders passed by the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court recorded a specific finding that the Education Board passed resolutions from time to time and assigned the clerical work to all the three complainants from 14/3/1996, whereas the nature of work assigned to the post of Kamathi is not that of clerical nature. The Industrial Court also noted that two of similarly placed employees have already been promoted to the post of Junior Clerk by the petitioners. 4. The view taken by the Industrial Court cannot be termed as perverse or patently erroneous so as to call for interference under Article 227 of the 7 Constitution. Hence these petitions must fail at the threshold and the same are hereby rejected summarily. (B.H.MARL