Bombay High Court
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAIversusPRADEEP SHINDE
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court held that there was no warrant for interference with the Labour Court award and dismissed the writ petition.
Summary
The petition challenged an award dated 19 March 2024 of the Fourth Labour Court, which directed that the respondent, a promoted Electrician Grade‑II, be placed on pay‑scale D‑15. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) contended that two distinct pay scales exist for the post: D‑15 for direct recruitment and D‑19 for promotion, a position supported by its written statement and witness testimony. A 2017 joint meeting of municipal officials acknowledged that maintaining two scales was undesirable but could not be altered until the next pay revision. The court noted that the respondent had retired on 1 May 2024 and the monetary difference claimed was under Rs 1,00,000. Finding no merit for interference with the Labour Court’s award, the court dismissed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the Labour Court award extending pay‑scale D‑15 to a promoted employee contravenes the municipal corporation’s policy of two separate pay scales for Electrician Grade‑II.
- Whether the existence of two pay scales for the same post is illegal or violative of principles of equality.
- Whether the petition warrants interference given the respondent’s retirement and the modest amount in dispute.
Subjects
- pay scale
- promotion
- municipal corporation
- industrial dispute
- equality
- writ petition
- labour law
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:34659
Megha 22_wp_6774_2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.6774 OF 2025
Municipal Corporation of Greater
Mumbai ...Petitioner
V/s.
Pradeep Shinde ...Respondent
________________
Mr. Akshay Shinde with Mr. Santosh Parad for the Petitioner-MCGM.
Mr. Burham Bukhari i/b. Mr. Vinod Mutalik for the Respondent.
________________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED: 20 AUGUST 2026.
P.C.:
1) The Petition challenges Award dated 19 March 2024 passed by
the Presiding Officer, Fourth Labour Court, Mumbai, answering
Reference (IDA) No.165 of 2019 in the affirmative. The Labour Court has
directed extension of pay scale Code D-15 and other benefits arising
therefrom to the Respondent.
2) I have heard Mr. Shinde, the learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner- Municipal Corporation and Mr. Bukhari, the learned counsel
appearing for the Respondent-employee and have considered the
submissions canvassed by them. I have gone through the findings
Page No.1 of 4
20 August 2026
Megha 22_wp_6774_2025
recorded by the Labour Court and also perused the records of the case
filed alongwith the Petition.
3) It appears that the Municipal Corporation maintains two
different pay scales for the post of Electrician Grade-II depending on the
method of recruitment. If a person is directly recruited on the post of
Electrician Grade-II, he is granted same scale of D-15 whereas if an
employee reaches the post of Electrician Grade-II through promotion he
is granted old pay scale of D-19. This position is confirmed by the
Municipal Corporation by pleading in the written statement as under:-
The First Party further submit that in the Municipal Corporation of
Greater Mumbai there are two criterias distincly formulated for the
appointment of Electrician Grade-II i.e. either by promotion from the
Labourers for by the selection. Hence, this is bring to the kind notice
of Hon'ble Court that Second Party workman was not appointed
directly to the post of Electrician Grade-II but he was promoted from
Labour to the Electrician Grade-II. This is bring to the kind notice of
Hon'ble Court further that he was put under the payscale code of D-19
as he was initially appointed in the Mumbai Fire Brigade workshop as
a Labour if he would have appointed as a Electrician Grade-II directly
by selection process then he would have been put under payscale code
of D-15. Hence, the claim of second party workman is totally wrong
and admant in nature. The detailed reasons in support of the said
denial is given in the Para No. 12 &13, 15 to 20 of this Written
Statement.
4) The witness of Petitioner-Municipal Corporation also gave
evidence about two different pay scales being operated in respect of the
post of Electrician Grade-II depending on the method of appointment. It
would be apposite to reproduce relevant part of the evidence of the
Petitioner:-
I further say that in the Municipal Corporation of Greater
Mumbai there are two criterias distincly formulated for the
Page No.2 of 4
20 August 2026
Megha 22_wp_6774_2025
appointment of Electrician Grade-II i.e. either by promotion from e
Labourers for by the selection. Hence, this is bring to the kind notice of
Hon'ble Court that Second Party workman was not appointed directly
to the post of Electrician Grade-II but he was promoted from Labour to
the Electrician Grade-II. This is bring to the kind notice of Hon'ble
Court further that he was put under the payscale code of D-19 as he
was initially appointed in the Mumbai Fire Brigade workshop as a
Labour if he would have appointed as a Electrician Grade-II directly by
selection process then he would have been put under payscale code of
D-15. Hence, the claim of second party workman is totally wrong and
admant in nature.
5) Even before this Court, the Petitioner has maintained the
position that there are separate pay scales for the post of Electrician
Grade-II depending on the method of appointment. It is averred in
paragraph 4 of the Petition as under:-
4. The Petitioner submits that, there are two criterias formulated by the
administration for the appointment of Electrician Grade II i. e. either by
promotion from the labour cadre and direct selection process. The
candidate appointed through promotion from labour cadre is put up
under pay scale D-19 and candidate appointed through direct selection
process is put up under scale D-15.
6) Mr. Shinde, submits that different pay scales are given to
Electrician Grade-II in Fire Department and in the other departments on
account of totally different criteria for their appointments. He submits
that in the Fire Brigade Department employee earns promotion to the
post of Electrician Grade-II on completion of four years of service
whereas in other departments, an employee has to complete 10 years of
service for becoming eligible to promotional post of Electrician Grade-II.
However, this issue is totally irrelevant in view of the above stand
consistently taken by the Municipal Corporation that two separate pay
scales are maintained based on different methods of recruitment. It
Page No.3 of 4
20 August 2026
Megha 22_wp_6774_2025
appears that there was a joint meeting held on 4 January 2017 in which
Deputy Municipal Commissioner (General Administration) had clearly
opined that it was incorrect to maintain two pay scales for the same post.
This is noted by the Labour Court in paragraph 31 of the impugned
Award, which reads thus:-
From the record it also appeared that there was joint meeting on
04/01/2017 in the said meeting the Dy. Municipal Commissioner
(General Administration) has given his opinion that it is wrong to
have two pay scales, but now it is not possible to change the same
and it will be considered at the time of next pay revision. The
minutes of meeting is on record on perusal of said minutes of
meeting it shows that, the first party is accepting that the nature of
work, as well as, eligibility criteria for the post of Electrician Grade-II
in different departments of the first party is same.
7) Considering the above position, there is no warrant for
interference in the impugned Award. Even otherwise, Mr. Bukhari has
submitted that the Petitioner has retired on attaining the age of
superannuation on 1 May 2024 and the difference payable is less than
Rs.1,00,000/-.
8) Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as
to costs.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Signed by: Megha S. Parab
Page No.4 of 4
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge 20 August 2026
Date: 21/08/2026 20:24:31
Checking your session…