1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No.5560/2007 Ramdeobaba Smarak Sarvajanik and another v Yeshwant s/o Krishnarao Makode. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. CORAM : A.P. LAVANDE, J. DATED : 31/7/2008. Heard Mr. Marpakwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Meghe, learned counsel for respondent. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 25.8.2007 passed by the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No.720/2002 by which the petitioner has been directed to place the respondent in revised pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590 as per Government Notification dated 4.2.1999 and after deducting the payment already made to him from the date of applicability of the Notification to pay the difference in salary to the respondent. The respondent filed the above complaint challenging the order dated 31.7.2002 issued by the petitioner transferring him from the post of Telephone Operator to Laboratory Attendant and also sought direction to pay scale 2 in terms of the Government Resolution dated 4.2.1999. The Industrial Court held that the respondent was appointed as Laboratory Attendant and in terms of the Government Notification dated 4.2.1999 the respondent was entitled to the scale in terms of Fifty Pay Scale and accordingly partly allowed the complaint. Mr. Marpakwar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complaint was barred by principle of res judicata inasmuch as earlier Complaint Case No.148/1995 filed by the respondent claiming benefits of Fourth Pay Commission was dismissed by the Industrial Court. The second ground urged is that the petitioner had claimed that he was appointed as Telephone Operator and not Laboratory Attendant and, therefore, he could not have been granted benefit of the scale applicable to Laboratory Attendant. No other ground has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner. Per contra, Mr. Meghe, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order and submitted that the earlier complaint was filed by the Union . Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, I find no merit in the present petition. Insofar as dismissal of earlier complaint No.148/1995 claiming benefit of Fourth Pay 3 Commission is concerned, the Industrial Court has rightly observed that the said order has been challenged by filing Writ Petition No. 3802/2005 and the same is pending and as such the principle of res judicata will not be applicable. I find no infirmity in the said finding. Insofar as second ground is concerned, no doubt, the respondent claimed that he has appointed as Telephone Operator. However, upon appreciation of the materials placed before the Court, the Industrial Court held that the respondent was appointed as Laboratory Attendant and as such entitled to the benefits of Fifth Pay Commission in terms of Notification dated 4.2.1999. This finding is based upon proper appreciation of the evidence led by the parties and as such no fault can be found with the same. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in any of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Hence, the petition is rejected. JUDGE Ambulkar.