1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 5471 of 2011 Municipal Council, Pusad thr. Its Chief Officer. Vs. Shivaji Sambhaji Waikule and others. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. R.R. Dawda h/f Mr. A.M.Ghare, Adv. for the petitioner. Mrs. I.L.Bodade, AGP. for the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J. DATE : 18 th November, 2011. Heard Shri Dawda, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Bodade, the learned Assistant Govt. Pleader for the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4. The respondent no.1 had filed a complaint under section 28 of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 on the ground that the petitioner had committed unfair labour practice by not paying the salary of the respondent no.1 though he was appointed on compassionate ground in Class-III service. The Industrial Court, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the petitioner had committed unfair labour practice under Item Nos. 5 & 9 of Schedule IV of the Act of 1971. The Court held that the respondent no.1 was entitled to receive the salary for the period during which the respondent no.1 had worked with the petitioner Municipal Council. The order passed by the Industrial Court on 29.1.2011 appears to be just and proper as the Industrial Court rightly held that the Municipal Council was liable to 2 pay the salary to the respondent no.1 for the period during which he had worked. According to the Industrial Court, the non-payment of salary amounted to breach of the provisions of Pay and Salary Rules 1936. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that in view of condition no. 4 of the appointment order, the respondent no.4 was not entitled to claim the salary in case his appointment was not approved by the Collector, Yavatmal, is ill-founded and is liable to be rejected as the Municipal Council could not have imposed such a condition in the appointment order as the said condition was clearly against the public policy. The petitioner was liable to pay the salary to the respondent no.1 for the work extracted by the petitioner from the respondent no.1. Since there no illegality or perversity in the order dated 29.1.2011, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Hirekhan.