1 jpc/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 61 OF 2005 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2251 OF 2005 M/s Gujrat Ambuja Cement Ltd. 122, Maker Chambers III, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 ..Appellant (Orig. Pettitioner) Vs. 1. Mr. C. Varghese. Ramnivas Lodge, Near Pinki Talkies, nagardas Road, Andheri(E), Mumbai 69 2. Shri S.L. Mehendale, Member, Industrial Court, Bandra(E) Mumbai 400 051 .. Respondents Shri R. S. Pai i/b Sanjay Udeshi & Co., for the Appellant Shri N. M. Ganguli, for the Respondent No.1 CORAM: V. C. DAGA, & MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED: 17th AUGUST, 2009 J U D G E M E N T (Per Mridula Bhatkar, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal is filed by the appellant- original petitioner against the order dated 17.10.2003 of the Learned Single Judge of this Court rejecting Writ petition No. 2251/2000 in which the order dated 31st July, 2000 passed by Respondent no.2, Member, Industrial 2 Court, Mumbai in Complaint (ULP) No. 1068 of 1992 was challenged. 3. Factural Matrix : Respondent No.1 was temporarily appointed as Steno-typist by the appellant Company on consolidated salary of Rs.1500/- per month in December, 1986 and he was confirmed on 4.6.1987. The appellant found Respondent- employee committing breach of discipline and was not maintaining the time schedule of the duty hours. So, the respondent employee was issued charge sheet and departmental enquiry was conducted in which the respondent-employee was held guilty for the misconduct and therefore, he was dismissed from the service on 27.5.1992. The respondent-employee challenged the said order of dismissal before the Respondent No.2- Member, Industrial Court by filing a Complaint under Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act). In the said complaint, Respondent no.1 made false claim of his entitlement for annual increments @ Rs. 400/- per month, LTA, HRA etc. The Member/Respondent No.2, on 31st July, 2000 passed order directing the petitioner to pay all the allowances i.e. HRA, LTA, Medical reimbursement to the respondent- employee. The petitioner challenged the order in Writ Petition No. 2251 of 2000. The learned Single Judge of this Court, by an order 3 dated 10.7.2003, was pleased to reject the said petition. Hence the petitioner has filed this Appeal. 4. Submissions: Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the claim of the respondent-employee for annual increment does not constitute unfair labour practice under Items 5 and 9 of of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge should have appreciated the facts that the respondent No.1 has accepted the consolidated salary per month and as per letter of appointment, he was not entitled to any increment or allowances. The appellant has not shown any favouratism or partiality and singled out the respondent- employee nor has failed to implement any award, agreement or settlement as mentioned under Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Act. It is further contended that the employee appointed on consolidated salary is not entitled to claim pay scale. 5. Consideration : In the present case, the respondent employee was appointed on consolidated wages and increment of Rs.150 was given to him in the year 1987-88 and then Rs. 50/- for two succeeding years. Therefore, the learned Single judge has rightly held that reduction in the increment and further denial of 4 increment was penalty imposed on the respondent-employee without giving opportunity to be heard in the matter. In the service matter, the record of the performance is to be maintained meticulously and in respect of complaint of poor performance or adverse remarks of the employee such remarks should be communicated in writing and as it was not done in the present case it was rightly held that it was violative of the principles of natural justice which is not expected in the service matters. Discrimination while granting of increment to the other stenographers and denying the same to the respondent employee, so also denial of the statutory allowances amounts to unfair labour practice under items 5 and 9 of Schedule IVof the MRTU&PULP Act. 6. On the point of limitation, the view taken by the learned Single judge that question of limitation does not arise in the case in hand is correct. As such, the order passed by the Single Judge is just and legal and no case is made out for interference. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (MRIDULA BHATKAR, J) ( V. C. DAGA, J)