[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Murlidhar Krishnaji More And Ors vs P.M.T. Kamgar Sangh (Intuc), Pune And ... on 26 March, 2026
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2026:BHC-AS:14390
wp-5627-2013 with connected.doc
Shabnoor
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 5627 OF 2013
Managing Director
Pune, Mahanagar Parivahan
Mahamandal Ltd.
Swargate, Pune 411 037. ... Petitioner
SHABNOOR
AYUB V/s.
PATHAN
Digitally signed by
SHABNOOR AYUB
PATHAN
Date: 2026.03.26
1. P.M.T. Kamgar Sangh (INTUC) Pune
12:12:45 +0530
P.M.T. Building, Shankarsheth Road,
Swargate,
Pune -411 037.
2. The Chief Secretary,
Urban Development Department
Government of Maharashtra
Mantralaya, Mumbai -400 032.
3. The Commissioner,
Pune Municipal Corporation Pune.
4. The Commissioner,
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
Pimpri, Pune.
5. The Commissioner,
Regional Provident Fund Office,
Golibar Maidan, Pune 411 001. ... Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.633 OF 2022
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 5627 OF 2013
Suryakant Tukaram Gaikwad & Ors. ... Applicants
In the matter between
Managing Director ... Petitioner
V/s.
P.M.T. Kamgar Sangh (INTUC) Pune & Ors. ... Respondents
1
::: Uploaded on - 26/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 26/03/2026 23:35:19 :::
wp-5627-2013 with connected.doc
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3484 OF 2023
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 5627 OF 2013
Muralidhar Krishnaji More & Ors. ... Applicants
In the matter between
Managing Director ... Petitioner
V/s.
P.M.T. Kamgar Sangh (INTUC) Pune & Ors. ... Respondents
Mrs. A. P. Purav, for the Petitioner.
Mr. A. S. Rao, for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Girish B. Badiger, for the Applicant in
IA/3484/2023.
Mr. Shivram A. Gawade i/b Mr. Deepak K. More, for
Respondent No.4.
Mr. Rakesh R. Bhatkar, a/w Mr. Mohan N. Devkule, Mr.
Mohit Dalvi, and Ms. Sakshi Kamble, for Intervener in
IA/633/2022.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
RESERVED ON : MARCH 5, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : MARCH 26, 2026
JUDGMENT:
1. By the present Petition, the Petitioner calls in question the
legality and correctness of the Judgment and Order passed by the
Industrial Court at Pune in Complaint (ULP) No.129 of 2011. The
said complaint was instituted by Respondent No.1 - Union under
the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and
Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, alleging
commission of unfair labour practices on the part of the Petitioner.
wp-5627-2013 with connected.doc
2. The Petitioner is a company engaged in the business of
providing public transport services by operating buses within the
territorial jurisdiction of the Pune Municipal Corporation and the
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation. It is the case of the
Petitioner that, prior to 18 July 2007, Pune Municipal Transport
functioned as a transport undertaking of the Pune Municipal
Corporation and Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Transport
functioned as a transport undertaking of the Pimpri Chinchwad
Municipal Corporation, both constituted under the Bombay
Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. It is further stated
that, in the year 2007, both undertakings came to be amalgamated
and, pursuant thereto, a company by the name of Pune Mahanagar
Parivahan Mahamandal Ltd. was incorporated under the
Companies Act. The Petitioner Company thus came into existence
with effect from 19 July 2007, and the employees of the erstwhile
PMT and PCMT stood absorbed in the services of the Petitioner. It
is also not in dispute that the Pune Municipal Corporation and the
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation are the principal
shareholders of the Petitioner Company.
3. The case of the Petitioner is that, since the year 1952, the
employees of the erstwhile PMT were governed by the provisions
of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions
Act, 1952. It is further submitted that, upon correspondence with
the Government of Maharashtra during the years 1965-66, a
pension scheme was formulated and, in the year 1970, exemption
from the applicability of the Provident Fund Act was granted to the
PMT employees under Section 20 of the said Act read with
wp-5627-2013 with connected.doc
Paragraph 27-A of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952.
According to the Petitioner, under the said pension regulations,
eligibility was restricted to those employees who were in service
prior to 31 March 1971 and who exercised an option to be
governed by the pension scheme. It is further stated that
opportunities to exercise such option were provided in the years
1971, 1975 and 1985, pursuant to which approximately 1311
employees opted for and were extended the benefits under the
said scheme.
4. The Petitioner further submits that those employees who
were appointed after 31 March 1971, as also those who did not
exercise the option for the pension scheme, continued to remain
governed by the provisions of the Provident Fund Act. It is
contended that such employees were fully aware of the deductions
made from their wages towards provident fund contributions and
of the corresponding contributions made by the employer, which
were duly deposited with the office of the Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner. It is also the specific case of the Petitioner that the
employees of the erstwhile PCMT were never governed by any
pension scheme and were at all material times covered only by the
provisions of the Provident Fund Act. It is further submitted that,
upon the merger of PMT and PCMT and the incorporation of the
Petitioner Company under the Companies Act, the provisions of
the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act ceased to have
application to the Petitioner.
5. It is the case of the Petitioner that, in the year 1999,
Respondent No.1 - Union raised a charter of 39 demands on
wp-5627-2013 with connected.doc
behalf of the employees of PMT. Demand No.15 pertained to the
extension of the departmental pension scheme to those employees
who were appointed after 01 April 1971 and who were otherwise
governed by the Provident Fund Act. The Petitioner submits that
the said demand came to be settled by recording that the pension
scheme may be made applicable to all employees of PMT, subject
to obtaining approval from the Government and subject to
compliance with necessary procedural formalities.
6. The Petitioner contends that, despite being fully aware that
implementation of the said demand was contingent upon approval
from the Government, Respondent No.1 - Union instituted
Complaint (ULP) No.129 of 2011 before the Industrial Court under
Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act. In the
said complaint, it was alleged that the Petitioner had indulged in
unfair labour practices by failing to implement Clause 15 of the
settlement and by adopting a discriminatory approach towards the
employees. The Petitioner filed its Written Statement resisting the
complaint and denied all allegations made therein. It was
specifically contended that the complaint was not maintainable
either in law or on facts. The parties thereafter led evidence and
placed on record relevant documentary material. The Respondent
examined its witness, namely Anjeneyya Nagapaa Anapur, who
was duly cross-examined on behalf of the Petitioner.
7. Upon consideration of the pleadings, evidence and material
placed on record, and after hearing the parties, the Industrial
Court, by its Judgment and Order dated 02 May 2013, allowed the
complaint. The Industrial Court recorded a finding that the
wp-5627-2013 with connected.doc
Petitioner had engaged in unfair labour practices within the
meaning of Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP
Act. Consequently, the Petitioner was directed to implement Clause
15 of the settlement dated 20 May 1999 and to extend pensionary
benefits in terms thereof. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment
and Order, the Petitioner has approached this Court by way of the
present Petition.
8. Ms. Purav, learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner,
submitted that the Judgment and Order dated 02 May 2013
passed by the Industrial Court at Pune in Complaint (ULP) No.129
of 2011 is manifestly erroneous and unsustainable in law. It is her
contention that the Industrial Court failed to properly appreciate
the material facts and applicable legal position, and thereby
arrived at findings which are contrary to the pleadings on record,
the evidence adduced by the parties, and the settled principles
governing the field. It was further submitted that the Industrial
Court committed a serious error in holding that the Petitioner had
breached Clause 15 of the Settlement dated 20 May 1999.
According to the learned Advocate, it is an admitted position on
record that the Petitioner was not a party to the said settlement. In
such circumstances, no liability for breach could have been
fastened upon the Petitioner. The Industrial Court, by overlooking
this fundamental aspect, rendered a finding which cannot be
sustained in law. The learned Advocate further contended that the
Complaint was essentially filed on behalf of retired employees. It
was submitted that retired employees do not fall within the ambit
of the term "employee" as defined under Section 3(5) of the MRTU
wp-5627-2013 with connected.doc
and PULP Act, 1971. On this premise, it was urged that such
persons lack the requisite locus to invoke the provisions of the Act,
and therefore the Complaint itself was not maintainable and ought
to have been rejected at the threshold.
9. It was also submitted that Clause 15 of the Settlement dated
20 May 1999 was expressly subject to fulfillment of certain
conditions, namely obtaining prior approval from the Appropriate
Government and compliance with statutory requirements. The
Petitioner, according to the learned Advocate, had undertaken all
necessary steps in this regard, including correspondence with the
Government and the Provident Fund authorities. However, the
Industrial Court failed to consider this material aspect and
proceeded to issue directions for unconditional implementation of
pensionary benefits.
10. The learned Advocate further submitted that the exemption
granted by the Appropriate Government under the Provident Fund
Act was confined only to those employees of PMT who were in
service prior to 01 April 1971. It was emphasized that no such
exemption or approval was ever granted in respect of employees
appointed thereafter. In this view of the matter, it was contended
that the Petitioner had no authority in law to extend the pension
scheme to post-1971 employees, and any direction to that effect
would be beyond the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court and
contrary to statutory provisions. It was also urged that the
Complaint pertains to events which had taken place several
decades ago and was filed predominantly on behalf of retired
employees. Entertaining such a stale claim, according to the
wp-5627-2013 with connected.doc
learned Advocate, amounts to an error apparent on the face of the
record and has resulted in serious prejudice to the Petitioner. The
learned Advocate further submitted that all the concerned
employees were governed by the Provident Fund Scheme and that
the retired employees had already withdrawn their provident fund
accumulations, including the employer's contribution. It was
contended that once such benefits are availed, the employees are
not entitled to claim pensionary benefits under any alleged
scheme. The Industrial Court, it was submitted, failed to consider
this settled legal position.
11. It was further contended that the Complainant Union was
not a recognized union insofar as the Petitioner establishment is
concerned. This fact, according to the learned Advocate, was
admitted by the witness of the Union during the course of
evidence. Despite this, the Industrial Court failed to take note of
this relevant circumstance and erroneously entertained the
Complaint. The learned Advocate also submitted that the pension
scheme in question was applicable only to those employees of PMT
who were in service prior to 01 April 1971 and who had exercised
their option in terms of the opportunities granted in the years
1971, 1975 and 1985. It was emphasized that employees of PCMT
were never governed by any such pension scheme. Further, the
Petitioner Company itself came into existence only on 19 July 2007
upon the merger of PMT and PCMT. In such circumstances, it was
contended that the Industrial Court failed to appreciate that the
scheme could not be extended either to post-1971 PMT employees
or to employees of PCMT. It was further submitted that the finding
wp-5627-2013 with connected.doc
recorded by the Industrial Court regarding discrimination under
Item 5 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act is wholly
unsustainable. According to the learned Advocate, the concerned
employees were not entitled to pensionary benefits in the first
place. In the absence of any enforceable right, the question of
discrimination does not arise. The finding of unfair labour practice
on this ground, therefore, is perverse and contrary to the statutory
provision. In light of the aforesaid submissions, it was urged that
the impugned Judgment and Order dated 02 May 2013 deserves to
be quashed and set aside. It was submitted that the Industrial
Court ought to have dismissed the Complaint as being devoid of
merit and not maintainable in law, and no direction for
implementation or extension of pensionary benefits could have
been issued against the Petitioner.
12. Per contra, Mr. Rao learned Advocate appearing for
Respondent No.1 submitted that the Petitioner establishment came
into existence in the year 2007 upon incorporation, following the
merger of the two transport undertakings of the Pune Municipal
Corporation and the Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation. It
was submitted that, prior to such incorporation, an agreement
dated 08 October 1970 had been entered into by the erstwhile
undertakings providing for a pension scheme applicable to their
employees, and that the said agreement continues to bind the
Petitioner. It was further submitted that although the employees of
the erstwhile PMT were initially governed by the Provident Fund
Scheme, a separate pension scheme was subsequently introduced
upon grant of exemption from the Provident Fund Act. However,
wp-5627-2013 with connected.doc
the said agreement applied only to employees who were in service
on or after 01 April 1971 and did not cover those who had retired
prior thereto. The learned Advocate submitted that the
Respondents had consistently raised demands for extension of the
pension scheme to retired employees as well. It was in response to
such demands that a Settlement dated 20 May 1999 came to be
executed, wherein Clause 15 specifically dealt with the issue of
extending the pension scheme to all employees of the erstwhile
undertaking.
13. It was further submitted that even after incorporation of the
Petitioner Company, the issue regarding implementation of the
pension scheme continued to be raised from time to time.
However, according to the learned Advocate, the Petitioner failed
to take any effective decision in the matter. Several meetings were
held in this regard, wherein it was suggested that approval from
the Government was required. In a meeting held with the
Government of Maharashtra on 28 July 2010, it was indicated that
the Petitioner was required to take an appropriate decision on the
issue. The learned Advocate submitted that despite repeated
follow-up, the Petitioner failed to implement the terms of the
Settlement and sought to evade its obligations. It was pointed out
that the Petitioner addressed correspondence to the Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner, Pune, who clarified that the grant
of exemption from statutory provisions was within the domain of
the Government. Thereafter, in a meeting held on 16 July 2012,
the Petitioner resolved that implementation of the pension scheme
was not feasible.
wp-5627-2013 with connected.doc
14. In the aforesaid circumstances, Respondent No.1 was
constrained to approach the Industrial Court by filing Complaint
(ULP) No.129 of 2011 seeking, inter alia, implementation of the
Settlement dated 20 May 1999, which, according to the
Respondent, continues to remain valid and binding as it has
neither been terminated nor superseded. It was submitted that the
Industrial Court, upon appreciation of the material on record,
rightly held that the Petitioner could not avoid its obligation to
implement the Settlement. The Industrial Court further held that
Clause 15 thereof remains operative and binding, and that the plea
of financial constraints cannot absolve the Petitioner from
compliance. Accordingly, the Industrial Court concluded that the
Petitioner had engaged in unfair labour practices under Items 5
and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act and directed
implementation of the pension scheme. The learned Advocate
submitted that the impugned order passed by the Industrial Court
is a well-reasoned order rendered after due consideration of the
evidence and applicable legal principles. It was contended that the
finding that the Petitioner is bound by Clause 15 of the Settlement
dated 20 May 1999 and that its failure to implement the same
amounts to an unfair labour practice is correct and does not
warrant interference.
15. Mr. Rao further placed on record a resolution passed by the
Board of Directors of the Petitioner dated 23 December 2016,
whereby it was resolved that a voluntary pension scheme,
applicable to the erstwhile Pune Municipal Transport undertaking,
may be extended to retired as well as serving officers and
wp-5627-2013 with connected.doc
employees, subject to its passing legal scrutiny. It was submitted
that the existence of this resolution has not been disputed by the
Petitioner.
16. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it was prayed that the
present Petition challenging the Judgment and Order dated 02
May 2013 passed by the Industrial Court, Pune, be dismissed. It
was contended that the Industrial Court has correctly held that the
Petitioner is bound to implement Clause 15 of the Settlement
dated 20 May 1999 and that its failure to do so constitutes an
unfair labour practice within the meaning of Items 5 and 9 of
Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971.
REASONS AND ANALYSIS:
17. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival
submissions, the pleadings and the documents placed on record.
The real question is whether the Industrial Court was right in
holding that the Petitioner could not avoid the Settlement and that
its refusal to extend the pension benefit amounted to an unfair
labour practice.
18. At the outset, the background facts are not in serious
dispute. The transport undertakings of Pune Municipal
Corporation and Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation were
merged and the Petitioner Company came into existence in the
year 2007. The workmen who had earlier served in the old
undertakings continued under the new establishment. It is also
clear from the record that for a long period there was a pension
arrangement in respect of certain employees of the erstwhile PMT,
wp-5627-2013 with connected.doc
and that the issue of extension of similar benefit remained alive
even thereafter. Thus, this is not a case where pension was a new
and sudden claim raised without any past foundation. The history
of the service conditions matters, and it shows that the parties had
for years dealt with this subject as a continuing service issue.
19. The first objection raised by the Petitioner is that it was not a
party to the Settlement dated 20 May 1999. At first glance, this
may appear to be a strong point. However, on closer consideration,
this contention cannot be accepted. It is correct that the Petitioner
Company came into existence at a later point of time. Still, the
matter cannot be decided only on this point. The real issue is that
the Petitioner did not come as a totally new or unrelated body. It
took over the entire transport activity. Along with that, it also took
over the employees and their service conditions. So, the continuity
of employment is not in dispute. When such continuity exists, the
successor cannot simply say that earlier arrangements do not bind
it. Service conditions do not vanish just because the legal form of
the employer changes. If the employees continue, their rights and
expectations also travel with them. Therefore, the Industrial Court
was right in not restricting itself only to the question of signature
on the Settlement. It correctly examined whether the obligation
created earlier continued in substance. Looking at the record, this
approach appears to be in accordance law.
20. The next contention relates to the complaint being filed on
behalf of retired employees. It is argued that retired persons are
not "employees" under Section 3(5) of the Act. The dispute is not
about a personal claim by a retired employee. It arises from a
wp-5627-2013 with connected.doc
settlement which governed service conditions of a group of
workmen. The Union has come forward representing that group.
Some of those workmen have retired over time. That, by itself,
does not break the chain of the dispute. If a benefit arises out of
service and is denied later, the dispute can still survive. Otherwise,
any employer can avoid obligations simply by waiting till
employees retire. That cannot be the intention of the law. The
definition of "employee" cannot be read in such a narrow and rigid
way. The Industrial Court has therefore rightly refused to dismiss
the complaint on this ground.
21. There is also much emphasis on Clause 15 being conditional.
It is said that implementation depended on Government approval
and legal formalities. This aspect cannot be ignored. Courts cannot
compel something which is legally prohibited or dependent on
statutory approval. But at the same time, a party cannot rely on
such condition only as an excuse without showing real effort. The
record shows that the issue was discussed several times. Letters
were exchanged with authorities. It is not a case where the matter
was never considered. However, what is noticeable is that the
Petitioner has not shown any final refusal from the Government.
Instead, it continued to say that approval is required and the
matter is not feasible. This kind of stand keeps the issue in
uncertainty without resolving it. If the Settlement required
compliance with formalities, then a genuine attempt had to be
made to complete those formalities. A mere statement that
approval is needed is not enough. The Industrial Court has
therefore rightly held that the Petitioner cannot avoid
wp-5627-2013 with connected.doc
responsibility by simply pointing to the conditional nature of the
clause.
22. The argument regarding provident fund also needs careful
consideration. It is true that many employees were covered under
the Provident Fund Act and have received their dues. But this fact
alone does not settle the matter. Provident fund and pension are
different in nature. Provident fund is a lump sum benefit
accumulated during service. Pension is a continuing benefit after
retirement. One does not automatically cancel the other. Unless
there is a clear rule or agreement stating that taking provident
fund will bar pension, such conclusion cannot be drawn. No such
clear bar has been shown in this case. Therefore, the fact that
provident fund amounts were received cannot by itself defeat the
claim for pension.
23. The Petitioner has also relied on the fact that exemption
under the Provident Fund Act was limited to employees before 01
April 1971. This submission has some relevance in understanding
the original scheme. But the dispute before the Court is not limited
only to that original position. Over time, demands were raised. A
settlement was entered into. Once the matter is taken forward in
this manner, it cannot be shut down by referring only to the
original limit. The proper question is whether, in light of the
settlement and later developments, there was a lawful way to
extend the benefit. The Industrial Court has found that such
extension was not legally impossible. The Petitioner has not shown
any absolute legal bar. Therefore, the finding of the Industrial
Court cannot be said to be unreasonable.
wp-5627-2013 with connected.doc
24. The point of delay is also raised. It is true that the events are
old and the complaint came later. But in matters like pension, the
effect is continuous. Every time pension is denied, the cause
continues. It is not a one-time wrong which ends once and for all.
Because of this, delay alone cannot be a ground to reject the claim.
At the most, it may affect certain aspects, but it does not wipe out
the right itself. In the present case, the Industrial Court has rightly
treated the issue as a continuing one.
25. The objection about the Union not being recognized also
does not carry much weight. The important question is whether
the Union was actually representing the employees and raising
their dispute. The material shows that the Union was actively
involved and the issue was discussed at various levels. Recognition
is relevant in some situations, but it is not an absolute condition in
every case. The Industrial Court has therefore rightly not treated
this objection as fatal.
26. Another important aspect is the resolution passed by the
Board of Directors of the Petitioner. This resolution shows that the
question of extending pension was considered even by the
management. It was stated that the scheme could be applied,
subject to legal scrutiny. It shows that the issue was not closed in
the mind of the Petitioner itself. If the Petitioner truly believed that
no such benefit was possible, there was no reason to pass such a
resolution. This circumstance supports the case of the Union that
the demand was genuine and required consideration.
wp-5627-2013 with connected.doc
27. On the question of discrimination, the Industrial Court has
found that similarly placed employees were treated differently
without proper justification. This finding is based on the material
on record. If a benefit is available to one set of employees and
denied to another without a valid reason, it amounts to unfair
treatment. The Petitioner has not shown any clear legal basis for
such difference. Therefore, the conclusion of the Industrial Court
on this aspect cannot be said to be wrong.
28. The argument that the Industrial Court exceeded its
jurisdiction also does not hold. The Court did not create any new
scheme. It only examined an existing settlement and the conduct
of the employer. It then decided whether failure to act according to
that settlement amounts to unfair labour practice. This is well
within its powers. The reasoning given by the Industrial Court
shows that it has considered the material and has not acted
mechanically.
29. Taking the matter as a whole, it becomes clear that the
Petitioner has not shown any serious legal error in the impugned
order. The findings of the Industrial Court are supported by
reasons and by the record. The objections raised by the Petitioner
are mainly technical and do not answer the real substance of the
dispute. The case reflects a long pending issue where employees
have been seeking a benefit based on a settlement, and the
employer has not taken a clear and lawful stand. In such
circumstances, the conclusion reached by the Industrial Court that
there was unfair labour practice appears to be justified.
wp-5627-2013 with connected.doc
30. In view of the foregoing discussion and reasons recorded
hereinabove, the following order is passed:
31. The Writ Petition stands dismissed.
32. The Judgment and Order dated 02 May 2013 passed by the
Industrial Court, Pune in Complaint (ULP) No.129 of 2011 is
hereby confirmed.
33. The Petitioner shall comply with and implement Clause 15 of
the Settlement dated 20 May 1999, in accordance with law, and
shall take all necessary steps for extending pensionary benefits to
the concerned employees, subject to compliance with statutory
requirements, within a period of six months from the date of this
order.
34. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
35. In view of disposal of the writ petition, all pending interim
applications stand disposed of.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
