Dismissed

B.M.C.of Gr.Bombay v. Shri Babaji S.Achrekar and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Nov 2005WP/130/1994

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, in a writ petition, rejected the petitioner corporation's challenge to the Industrial Court's order only after applying a precedent. The court held that non-teaching staff in secondary schools form a separate cadre governed by the Secondary Schools Code and are distinct from staff in primary schools or other departments, thus rejecting the claim for equal pay.

What did the court decide?

Allow the petition in terms of prayer clause (a) and dismiss the original complaint filed by respondent 1.

B.M.C.of Gr.Bombay Vs Shri Babaji S.Achrekar… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 130 OF 1994.

¶4

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, having their head office at Mahapalika Marg, Bombay 400 001. 2. The Superintendent, office of the Superintendent Secondary Schools, Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, Hindu Colony, Dadar, Mumbai 400 014. ... Petitioners Versus. 1. Shri Babaji Sadanand Achrekar an Indian Inhabitant, residing at 16/383, Tata Colony, Bandra East, Bombay 400 051. 2. Shri G.S.Baj, Member Industrial Court, Bombay, having his office at Arun Chambers, Tardeo, Bombay 400 034. ... Respondents.

¶5

Ms.N.V.Sanglikar with Shri Vinod Mahadik for the Petitioners.

¶6

Shri Kiran Bapat for the Respondents.

¶7

CORAM : SMT.RANJANA DESAI &

¶8

ABHAY S. OKA, JJ.

¶9

DATED : 17th November, 2005.

¶10

ORAL JUDGMENT.: (per Smt.Ranjana Desai,J.)

¶11

1.		The petiti	oners the M	unicipa	l Corpora	tion for
Greater		Bombay	("the	Muni	cipal	Corporation" for	short)
and	the	Superinte	ndent	of	the	Secondary Schools	of
Municipal		Corporatio	n of	G	reater	Bombay, petitioners	1
and	2	respectively,	have	ch	allenged	in this petition	the

¶12

: 2 :

¶13

judgment and order dated 22nd September 1993 passed by

¶14

the Industrial Court, Bombay, in Complaint (ULP) No.297 of 1986.

¶15

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as under:

¶16

. Accor	ding to respondent 1 he was working as a
peon in the	Secondary School run by the	Municipal
Corporation known	as Globe Mill Passage	Municipal
Secondary School.	It is his case that he should b	e paid
in the payscale	on par with the peons working in	the
Head Office	of the Municipal Corporation situated	at
Mahapalika Marg,	Mumbai. The peons working in the	Head
Office are also	the employees of the	Municipal
Corporation. Repea	ted requests made by respondent	1 for
parity were not	attended to. According to respond	ent 1,
petitioner 1 is	paying more wages to the peons	employed
in the head offic	e. His case is that he is being	paid
Rs.300/- less than	the peons working in the Head	Office.
His further case	is that petitioner 1 has	not
implemented the	agreement arrived at between	petitioner
1 and the	Municipal Mazdoor Union in respect of	the
service conditions	of the employees including the	peons
employed with	petitioner 1. On these allegations	a
complaint came to	be filed under Items 5 and	9 of
Schedule IV o	f the Maharashtra Recognition of	Trade
Unions and	Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices	Act,

¶17

: 3 :

¶18

1971	(hereinaf	ter referred to	as "M	RTU	&	PULP	Act")
against	the	petitioners. Re	spondent	1	inter	alia	prayed
that he	may	be paid wages	on par	with	the	peons	employed
at	the	Head Office by	petitioner	1	and	that	necessary
directions	be	issued to the	petition	ers	to	implement	the

¶19

award, settlement, agreement arrived at between

¶20

petitioner 1 and the Municipal Mazdoor Union.

¶21

3.		The Indus	trial Court came to the conclusion that
respondent	1	had	proved that the	petitioners	have
committed		unfair	labour practice as conte	mplated	under
Items	5 and	9 of	Schedule IV of the MRTU	& PULP	Act and
that	respond	ent 1	had proved that he is	entitled	to the
wages	on par	with	the wages paid to the	employees	at the
Head	Office	of	the petitioners till	date.	The
Industrial	Co	urt	declared that the	petitioners	had
engaged	in	unfair	labour practices under Items	5 and	9
of	Schedule	IV of	the MRTU & PULP Act.	The	Industrial
Court	directed	the	petitioners to pay all	the arre	ars of
wages	to	respondent	1 considering the	difference	between
the	wages	paid t	o the peons employed in	the Head	Office
and	the	actual	wages paid to the compla	inant from	the
date	of	his a	ppointment. The Industrial	Court	further
directed		that	the settlements/agreemen	ts/awards	arrived
at	between	the	petitioners and the M	unicipal	Mazdoor
Union	in	respect	of the service conditions	of	peons
employed	by	petitio	ner 1 be implemented in	the case	of
respondent	1		also with retrospective effect	from	the

¶22

: 4 :

¶23

respective dates of such settlements/agreements. It is

¶24

this order which is challenged in this petition.

¶25

4. We have heard at c	onsiderable	length
Ms.Sanglikar learned counsel ap	pearing for	the
petitioners and Shri Bapat learned	counsel appearing	for
respondent 1. Ms.Sanglikar has draw	n our attention	to
the judgment of the Division Bench	of this Court	(Coram:
P.S.Patankar and D.B.Bhosale, JJ)	in Writ	petition
No.3879 of 1988 dated 5th February	2002 wherein	this
Court has considered the question	involved in	this
petition. She submitted that this	Court has	after
considering the relevant case law com	e to a c	onclusion
that non-teaching staff working in	the secondary	schools
of the Municipal Corporation is not	on par with	the
non-teaching staff of the primary sc	hools or the	staff
in other departments of the Munic	ipal Corporation.	The
learned Counsel for the petitioners	urged that	the
present case is clearly covered by	this judgment.	Shri
Bapat on the other hand contended	that the claim	of
respondent 1 is also based on the	agreement arrived	at
between petitioner 1 and the Municipal	Mazdoor Union	and
there is sufficient indication in	the record	that
petitioner 1 has not abided by	the agreement	and

¶26

therefore, to that extent this Court must give relief to

¶27

respondent 1.

¶28

We are not impressed by the submission of the

¶29

: 5 :

¶30

learned	Counsel for respondent 1. In our c	onsidered
opinion,	the present case is clearly covered by	the
judgment	of this Court in Writ Petition No.3879 of	1988.
In t	hat case, the first petitioner was a trade	union
representing	non-teaching staff working in the	municipal
secondary	school of the Municipal Co	rporation.
Petitioners	2 to 4 were its office-bearers.	The
petitioners	had prayed that the Municipal Corporation	be
directed	to treat the non-teaching staff of	the
secondary	schools run by the Municipal Corporation	as
municipal	servants and to give them service c	onditions,
benefits	and privileges applicable to other	municipal
employees.	This court held that from day one	the
non-teaching	staff in the secondary schools is	treated
as	forming a separate cadre. The service conditio	ns of
the	said staff are governed by the secondary	school
code.	It is a class by itself. This court	further
observed	that the pay scales, the method of re	cruitment,
promotion	and channel of promotion of the no	n-teaching
staff	of the secondary schools differ from	other
employees	of the Municipal Corporation.	After
considering	all aspects of the matter and relevant	case
law	and particularly the judgment of the Supreme	Court

¶31

in Air India v/s. Nargesh Meerza & ors. (1981) 4 SCC

¶32

335, this court concluded as under:

¶33

"The municipal	non-teaching secondary	staff schools	working are	in governed	the by

¶34

: 6 :

¶35

the	Secondary	Schools Code. From	day one,
they	have	been treated separately in	case of
pay-scales,	recr	uitment, channel and	method of
promotion,	etc.	They are given	the pay-scales
and	other	benefits payable in case	of other
private	secon	dary schools, rec	ognised and
aided	by	the Government. The	non-teaching
staff	has	accepted the Fifth Pay	Commission
pay-scales	as	adopted by	the State.
Therefore,	th	ey form a distinct	class along
with	such	teachers and cannot be	equated with
the	non-te	aching staff in the	primary schools

¶36

of the Corporation or other departmental

¶37

employees."

¶38

This	Court	also	held	that	it is	not	possible	to	hold
that	the	non-teac	hing	staff	in	the	secondary	schools	is
given	any	disc	riminatory		treatment	by	the	Mu	nicipal

¶39

Corporation on the principle of equal pay for equal work.

¶40

In view of this, we are unable to agree with the

¶41

view	taken	by the	Ind	ustrial Court that	respond	ent 1 is
entitled	to	wages on	par	with the peons	working	in the
Head	Office.	So	far	as the contention	of S	hri Bapat
that	the	petitioner 1	has	not abided by	the	settlement
arrived	at	between	the	petitioner 1 and	the	Municipal
Mazdoor		Union is	concern	ed, the impugned	order	does not

¶42

: 7 :

¶43

indicate	that	there	is	evidenc	e	of any	particular
settlement	being	a	pplicable	to	resp	ondent 1.	This
contention	is	vague.	In	view	of	this there	is no
question	of	this	court	directing	im	plementation of	any
settlement.		We	therefore,	allow	the	petition in	terms
of	prayer	clause	(a).	The or	iginal	complaint filed	by

¶44

respondent 1 is dismissed. Petition is disposed of in

¶45

the aforestated terms.

¶46

(Smt.Ranjana Desai, J.)

¶47

(Abhay S.Oka, J.)

B.M.C.of Gr.Bombay v. Shri Babaji S.Achrekar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.M.C.of Gr.Bombay v. Shri Babaji S.Achrekar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Standard Batteries Employees Union. Vs Standerd Batteries Ltd. and Ors.

Dr.Abhay M.Chheda Vs Homeopathic Education Society and Ors.

Chandivali Farm Quarry Workders Residents Association Vs Slum Rehabilatation Authority and Ors.

J.L.Fernandes Vs the Bombay State Electronics Supply Ltd. and Ors.

Ravikant N. Sharma Vs University of Mumbai

Rambhanu Haribans Singh and Ors. Vs Board of Trustees of Mumbai Prot Trust and Ors.