Bombay High Court
LAXMAN KHANDUJI DANEversusTHE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION DIVISION AURANGABAD
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court ordered the respondent to re‑verify the petitioners' pay scale and communicate its decision, permitting the petitioners to approach the Industrial Court afresh if aggrieved.
Summary
The petitioners, who were employed as cleaners by the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC), filed writ petitions challenging the Industrial Court's dismissal of their complaints alleging unfair labour practice and seeking permanent employee status, wages and benefits. The High Court had earlier, in Writ Petition No.5088 of 1996, set aside similar dismissals and held that the respondents had engaged in unfair labour practice under Item 6 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, directing entitlement to permanent‑employee benefits. The petitioners argued that despite the 2010 Divisional Standing Order and a 2016 order extending the pay scale, they had not received the full benefits. The Court, rather than deciding the merits, directed the MSRTC to re‑verify the pay scales of the petitioners in light of its 1996 order and to communicate its decision within eight weeks, allowing the petitioners to approach the Industrial Court afresh if dissatisfied. Consequently, the writ petitions were disposed of with the above directions.
Issues considered
- Whether the Industrial Court's dismissal of the petitioners' complaints should be set aside in view of the High Court's earlier order.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to permanent employee status, wages and benefits under Item 6 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act.
- Whether the respondent has complied with the High Court's directions regarding extension of the pay scale.
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Road Transport Undertakings Act — s. Schedule IV Item 6
- Public Undertakings Labour (PULP) Act — s. Schedule IV Item 6
Subjects
- unfair labour practice
- industrial court
- permanent employee status
- wage entitlement
- MSRTC
- writ petition
- verification
- labour law
- Schedule IV
- Item 6
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:14497
1 of 4 926-WP.4139.2020.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
926 WRIT PETITION NO. 4139 OF 2020
SATISH KISHAN CHANDAN
VERSUS
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION DIVION AURANGABAD
...
Mr. Arvind Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Dnyaneshwar Suresh Bagul, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4187 OF 2020
LAXMAN KHANDUJI DANE
VERSUS
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION DIVISION AURANGABAD
…
Mr. Arvind Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Dnyaneshwar Suresh Bagul, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4494 OF 2020
NITIN SUDHAKAR AUTEE
VERSUS
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION AURANGABAD DIVISION
…
Mr. Arvind Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Dnyaneshwar Suresh Bagul, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
…
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4309 OF 2020
LAXMAN NANASAHEB LOKHANDE
VERSUS
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT COPORATION AURANGABAD
…
2 of 4 926-WP.4139.2020.odt
Mr. Arvind Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Dnyaneshwar Suresh Bagul, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 27th MARCH 2026
P.C.:-
1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties.
2. By the present petitions, the Petitioners challenge the orders
dated 08.01.2019 passed below Exhibit O-5 by the learned Member,
Industrial Court, Aurangabad in Complaint (ULP) Nos. 96 of 2010, 101
of 2010, 97 of 2010 and 95 of 2010, whereby the complaints filed by
the Petitioners came to be dismissed. Without delving into the earlier
proceedings in detail, it is pertinent to note that this Court, while
deciding Writ Petition No.5088 of 1996, observed in paragraph 22 as
under:
“22. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The order
passed by the Industrial Court, Aurangabad, dismissing the
Complaint (ULP) Nos.208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213 and 229 of
1992 are hereby set aside. The writ petition is allowed. It is held
that the respondent has indulged in unfair labour practice under
Item 6 Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act and shall desist
from doing so. The petitioners are entitled to get the status,
wages and other benefits of permanency applicable to the post of
cleaners employed by respondent. However, it is made clear that
the petitioners. would not be entitled to the wages for the period
for which they have not actually worked. accordingly. Rule made
absolute accordingly.”
3. Thus, it is evident that the Petitioners are entitled to the
status, wages, and other benefits of permanency applicable to the post
of cleaners employed by the Respondent. The contention of the
3 of 4 926-WP.4139.2020.odt
Petitioners is that, since they were appointed in the year 1984, 1986
and 1990 respectively and in view of the aforesaid orders, they are
entitled to wages and pay scales as per similarly situated permanent
employees. However, according to them, such benefits have not been
fully extended, which constrained them to approach the Industrial
Court.
4. Mr. Bagul, learned Advocate for the Respondent, has
tendered across the bar Divisional Standing Order No.119 of 2010 and
submitted that the pay scale applicable to permanent employees has
already been extended to the Petitioners. He further relied upon a
subsequent order passed in the year 2016 to contend that the
directions issued by this Court have been duly complied with.
5. Upon perusal of the impugned orders and the material on
record, instead of adjudicating the matter on merits, I am inclined to
direct the Respondent–MSRTC to re-verify the pay scale granted to the
Petitioners and to communicate its decision to them. The Respondent
shall consider the matter in the light of the order passed by this Court
in Writ Petition No.5088 of 1996. In the event the Petitioners remain
aggrieved, they are at liberty to avail appropriate remedies available in
law, including approaching the Industrial Court afresh. If such a
complaint is filed, the Industrial Court shall decide the same
independently, without being influenced by its earlier order, and in
4 of 4 926-WP.4139.2020.odt
accordance with law.
6. The Respondent–MSRTC shall communicate its decision to
the Petitioners within a period of eight weeks from today.
7. Hence, the present writ petitions stand disposed of.
(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)
Tauseef
Checking your session…