Bombay High Court
Maharashtra Motor Kamgar Union ... vs Divisional Controller ... on 7 July, 2017
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.5208 OF 2000
Maharashtra Motor Kamgar Union,
Aurangabad/Beed,
Through its Secretary,
Shri Shaikh Riyazuddin,
Age-41 years, Occu-Service,
R/o Beed -- PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. Divisional Controller,
Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation, Beed,
2. Maharashtra State Road
Transport Corporation, Through
It's Chairman, Wahatuk Bhuvan,
Bombay Central, Bombay -- RESPONDENTS
Mr.S.A.Kulkarni, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.D.S.Bagul, Advocate for respondent No.1.
( CORAM : Ravindra V.Ghuge, J.)
DATE : 07/07/2017
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner/Union is aggrieved by the judgment of the
Industrial Court dated 09/09/1999 by which Complaint (ULP)
no.91/1993 has been dismissed.
2. I have considered the strenuous submissions of Mr.Kulkarni,
khs/JULY 2017/5208-d
learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr.Bagul, learned Advocate
on behalf of the respondents. With their assistance, I have gone
through the memo of the petition, the amended complaint and the
judgment impugned.
3. Considering the view taken by the Hon'ble Division Bench of
this Court (Coram :- Sunil P.Deshmukh and Ravindra V.Ghuge, JJ.)
in Review application No.40/2016 in the matter of MSRTC Vs.
Rajendra Arjun Dalvi and others by judgment dated 15/02/2017, this
petition can be disposed of.
4. Upon considering the entire complaint and the analysis of the
oral and documentary evidence emerging from the impugned
judgment, the petitioner/Union has specifically put forth only two
grievances in the complaint, rest been quite vague and ambiguous,
which are as under :-
[a] The timescale employees were getting Rs.1,180/- as basic
pay and these 64 workers at issue were getting Rs.980/- as
basic pay. The difference in basic pay was Rs.100/- and the
total difference including the allowances is said to be Rs.400/-
per month.
[b] The employees involved in this petition were being paid
their daily wage for 26 days in a month in comparison to the
khs/JULY 2017/5208-d
regular workers who were being paid for 30 days in a month.
The grievance is, therefore, with regard to a shortfall of pay for
4 days.
5. I quite see that though the complaint runs into 10 pages, the
Union has not pin-pointedly pleaded those benefits to which they
claim to be entitled to under Clause 49 of the settlement dated
28/05/1956 and which are purportedly not extended to them. It is
only the above two issues that emerge from paragraph Nos.3B, 3C
and 7 of the amended complaint.
6. In the judgment dated 15/02/2017, referred to above, the
Division Bench has issued directions under paragraph No.8 which
read thus :-
"8. Notwithstanding the fact that this Review Application is to be
disposed of considering the above, we find that the following
observations would assist the parties in bringing an end to this
litigation :
[A] The respondents/original petitioners shall move a
representation to the MSRTC within a period of four (4) weeks
from today indicating any shortfall in the payment made to them
after completing 180 days and prior to being granted
permanency with reference to Clause 2 under (II-A) reproduced
above.
[B] After receiving such representation, the MSRTC shall consider
khs/JULY 2017/5208-d
the claims and shall pass an appropriate order within six (6)
weeks, indicating to the employees as to whether Clause 2 has
been complied with. In the event of any shortfall, MSRTC shall
make the residual payment.
[C] After the MSRTC decides the representation and
communicates its decision to the employees, in the event, their
grievance based on disputed questions is still not redressed,
they would be at liberty to resort to an appropriate adjudicatory
remedy, as may be available in law, with regard to the disputed
questions."
7. I find from the impugned judgment that the petitioner had not
specifically led evidence with regard to the difference in the basic pay
and allowances and the aspect of pay for 26 days and 30 days. That
issue does not find place in the impugned judgment. The complaint
could therefore be remitted to the Industrial Court for dealing with
the said two issues. However, Mr.Kulkarni submits that most of the
employees involved must be in their late 50's or may also have
superannuated and it would be quite harsh to direct them to
approach the Industrial Court in the complaint which was lodged 24
years ago. He, therefore, suggested that this Court may consider the
view taken in paragraph No.8 of judgment dated 15/02/2017
reproduced above and issue similar directions. Mr.Bagul clarifies
that the MSRTC would now look into only two aspects as are
khs/JULY 2017/5208-d
specifically pleaded in the complaint regarding difference of pay and
the days for which payment has been made as is stated hereinabove.
8. Considering the above, this petition is disposed of and the
MSRTC is called upon to revisit its records for deciding the following
two aspects :-
[a] Whether there was any difference in pay in between the
petitioner's employees and the regular employees for the period
as is averred in paragraph No.3(b) of the complaint.
[b] Whether the employees at issue were entitled to wages
for 30 days in a month as is alleged in paragraph No.3(c) of the
complaint.
9. The MSRTC shall conduct the said scrutiny within a period of
4 (four) months from today and thereafter communicate its decision
to the petitioner/Union within 1 (one) month, preferably by the end of
December 2017. If there is any shortfall and the MSRTC concludes
that the same has to be paid to those workmen who are so identified,
it shall take the efforts to call upon such workmen to collect their
legal dues expeditiously.
10. Needless to state, the scrutiny to be conducted by the MSRTC
will depend upon the applicability of a particular settlement and the
khs/JULY 2017/5208-d
law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in MSRTC Vs. Premlal
[2007(9) SCC 141].
11. Rule is discharged.
( Ravindra V.Ghuge, J.)
khs/JULY 2017/5208-d
