1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8513 OF 2009 Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. ...Petitioners. Vs. Shri.Chandrakant S. Yadav. ..Respondent. Mr. G.S.Hegde for the Petitioners. CORAM : R.S. MOHITE, J. DATE : 4TH DECEMBER, 2009 PC : 1 This petition challenges an order dated 22.1.2009 passed by the Industrial Court, Kolhapur in Complaint (ULP) No.171/2000. By the impugned order, the petitioners have been held to have indulged in unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 and has been directed to pay incentive to the complainant for the period for which he was connected with the stores department in tyre remolding plant, within a period of one month. It is sought to be contended that the work of the 2 respondent as a helper was merely to carry the tyres to the stores department and therefore, he was not involved in the work of production. It is seen from the impugned judgment that the trial court has relied upon Clause 6 of the Circular issued by the petitioners which extends the benefit to non production staff attached to the tyre remolding plant like maintenance. Even sweepers are entitled to grant of such incentive. It is sought to be contended that the sweepers are attached to the maintenance department as they clean the equipments. It is seen that the respondent did not produce any documents and there is no evidence to indicate the exact nature of the work as alleged. The record indicates that other workmen who were helpers were also granted incentive. This is not a fit case under the limited jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and therefore, petition is rejected. ( R.S. MOHITE, J.) 3