Bombay High Court
Vice Chancellor, Marathwada ... vs Nanded Zilla Shetmajoor Union on 1 December, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
WP/2013/1997
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2013 OF 1997
1. Vice Chancellor,
Marathwada Agriculture University,
Parbhani.
2. Cotton Specialist,
Marathwada Cotton Research
Station, Nanded. ..Petitioners
Versus
1. Nanded Zillha Shetmajor Union,
C/o Trade Union Centre,
Kamgarbhuvan, Nanded 2.
2. The Member,
Industrial Court, Jalna. ..Respondents
...
Advocate for Petitioners : Shri M.N.Navandar
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Dated: December 01, 2016
...
ORAL JUDGMENT:-
1. Respondent No.2 is the Industrial Court and hence deleted
from this proceeding.
2. None appears for the respondent / Union despite the matter
having been shown on the Board.
3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment dated 14.6.1996,
WP/2013/1997
by which, the Industrial Court has allowed Complaint (ULP) No.69 of
1994 and directed the petitioner to pay the difference of unpaid
wages as per the scale to which the employees mentioned in the
annexure to the complaint were entitled.
4. This Court granted interim relief to the petitioner by staying
the judgment and admitted the matter on 16.7.1998.
5.
I have considered the strenuous submissions of Shri Navandar,
who has vehemently criticized the impugned judgment. I have gone
through the record.
6. His contention is that the issue as regards the payment of daily
wages at the rate of Rs.19.40 per skilled worker was brought down by
the petitioner to Rs.16.00 per day in the light of the objections of
the Auditor. He submits that the earlier circular dated 31.5.1988 was
succeeded by the circular dated 27.9.1988 and hence the daily wages
to be paid to such skilled labourers would be Rs.16.00.
7. There is no dispute that as per circular dated 31.5.1988, the
workmen at issue were being paid their daily wages at the rate of
Rs.19.40. It is equally undisputed that they were working as skilled
labourers. It is also undisputed that none of these workers held
Diploma Certificates as was provided for in the said circular.
WP/2013/1997
However, each of them had acquired three years' of experience of
working in agricultural university and hence the petitioner granted
them the daily wages at the rate of Rs.19.40.
8. It is undisputed that the circular dated 27.9.1988 was
introduced subsequently and it was provided that a skilled worker
would be one who has the Diploma Certificate as well as three years'
of experience of working in agricultural university. As such, the word
"OR" which found place in the Circular dated 31.5.1988 was removed
from the circular dated 27.9.1988 and was replaced by the word
"AND".
9. The respondent / employees, who were earlier granted the
pay scale of skilled workers, were entitled to the same as they had
three years of experience instead of the Diploma Certificate. The
subsequently introduced circular mandated that such employees
should fulfill both these conditions. In my view, a subsequently
introduced circular cannot cause prejudice to those employees who
were entitled to the pay scale on the basis of an earlier circular
which was applicable to them as they were already in employment.
The subsequently introduced circular would operate prospectively
and would cover those employees who have joined post the
introduction of the said circular.
WP/2013/1997
10. The Industrial Court in paragraph No.9 of the impugned
judgment has, therefore, rightly concluded that the subsequent
circular cannot be prejudicial to the interest of the respondent /
employees.
11. In the light of the above, I do not find the impugned judgment
of the Industrial Court could be termed as perverse or erroneous.
The petition being devoid of merits is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is
discharged.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
...
akl/d
