JUDGMENT Nishita Mhatre, J.
1. This petition has been filed challenging the order of the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 347 of 1988. The contention of the petitioner is that the notification issued by the Government of Maharashtra in respect of payment of special allowance to the workmen working in the powerloom sector in Ichalkaranji was not applicable to them as they have entered into an agreement in the presence of the Minister of Labour, whereby the petitioners had paid a higher amount to the workmen.
2. The respondents filed a complaint under Section 28 r/w Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as MRTU & PULP Act) alleging that the petitioners had committed unfair labour practice by failing to implement the notification issued by the Government of Maharashtra in 1984 and 1986 regarding payment of special allowance to the workmen employed in the powerloom sector. The complaint was opposed by the petitioners on the ground that they were paying higher than the minimum wages and, therefore, they were not bound to pay any further amount under the said notification. They further contended in the written statement filed before the Industrial Court that they were paying 15 paise per one metre of cloth of 52 peaks and they were paying this amount as agreed before the Minister of Labour.
3. Evidence was led before the Industrial Court of the workmen who averred that none of the workmen employed by the petitioners were being paid special allowance for the work that they were doing. The Industrial Court on the basis of the evidence on record has, in my view, rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioners have committed an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. The Industrial Court came to the conclusion that the petitioners were bound to pay special allowance at the rate fixed by the Government by its Notifications. The Industrial Court also did not believe the record maintained in the registers produced by the petitioners as it was silent regarding tbe payment of special allowance. Further, the registers did not in any manner show the actual days of work put in by the workmen and, therefore, the Industrial Court did not accept those registers. The so-called agreement of 1986 signed in the presence of the Minister of Labour has been discarded by the Industrial Court as it is not an agreement in the eye of Law. The Table or Chart showing the amounts paid to the workmen which was produced by the petitioners before the Labour Court after the evidence was completed has not been considered by the Industrial Court as it was not proved by the petitioners.
4. While admitting this writ petition, A. P. shAH, J. has observed that there is no merit in the case of the petitioners, but since the decision was to affect a large number of establishments in Ichalkaranji, the petition was admitted. I am in respectful agreement with the learned Judge. The petitioners have not in any manner demonstrated as to why and how the notification of 1986 issued by the Government of Maharashtra in respect of payment of special allowance to the workmen employed in the powerloom sector is not applicable to the petitioners. The Industrial Court has lightly dismissed the contentions of the petitioners that the additional amount of 26 paise which was being paid to the workmen according to the petitioners was inclusive of special allowance. In fact, the agreement/understanding on which the petitioners' argument is based, cannot be considered an agreement under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act which is applicable to the powerloom sector.
5. In view of this, the order of the Industrial Court is upheld. The petitioners have committed an unfair labour practice by non- implementation of the notification of 1984 and 1986 as well as the agreement dated November 18, 1984. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
6. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.