{"id":34166,"date":"2010-03-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamla-neharu-abhiyantriki-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-23-march-2010"},"modified":"2018-10-13T03:57:31","modified_gmt":"2018-10-12T22:27:31","slug":"kamla-neharu-abhiyantriki-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-23-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamla-neharu-abhiyantriki-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-23-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"Kamla Neharu Abhiyantriki vs State Of Maharashtra on 23 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Kamla Neharu Abhiyantriki vs State Of Maharashtra on 23 March, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: B. P. Dharmadhikari<\/div>\n
                                       1\n\n\n\n\n                                                                   \n                                   \n\n\n\n\n                                           \n             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                           NAGPUR BENCH\n\n\n\n\n                                          \n                    WRIT PETITION NO.  3802   OF  2005\n\n\n     Shri Ramdeobaba Kamla Nehru \n\n\n\n\n                                  \n     Abhiyantriki Mahavidyalaya\n     Shikshaketar Karmachari Sanghatana,\n                     \n     Registered under the Trade Unions\n     Act, through its President Shri \n     Nandkishor Purohit c\/o Ramdeobaba\n                    \n     Kamla Neharu Abhiyantriki \n     Mahavidyalaya, Gitti Khadan,\n     Katol Road, Nagpur.                     ...   PETITIONER\n      \n\n\n                          Versus\n   \n\n\n\n     1. State of Maharashtra,\n        through its Secretary,\n\n\n\n\n\n        Department of Higher and\n        Technical Education,\n        Mantralaya, Bombay - 32.\n\n     2. Nagpur University\n\n\n\n\n\n        through its Vice Chancellor,\n        Nagpur.\n\n     3. All India Council for Technical\n        Education through its Chairman,\n        Indira Gandhi Sports Complex,\n        T.R.P., New Delhi.\n\n\n\n\n                                           ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:45:06 :::\n                                                2\n\n\n\n\n                                                                               \n     4. Industrial Court,\n        Maharashtra, Nagpur Bench,\n\n\n\n\n                                                       \n        Nagpur.\n\n     5. Shri Ramdeobaba Sarwajanik\n        Samiti, Ramdeobaba Tekdi, \n        Gitti Khadan, Katol Road,\n\n\n\n\n                                                      \n        through its Principal.\n\n     6. Ramdeobaba Kamla Nehru \n        Engineering College, through\n\n\n\n\n                                        \n        its Principal, Ramdeobaba\n        Tekdi, Gitti Khadan, \n                      \n        Katol Road, Nagpur.                                ...   RESPONDENTS\n                     \n     Shri R.S. Parsodkar, Advocate for the petitioner.\n     Shri Mujumdar, AGP for respondents No. 1 & 4.\n     Shri P.V. Thakare, Advocate for respondent No. 2.\n      \n\n     Shri Sundaram with Ms. Tanna, Advocates for respondent No. 3.\n     Shri   Shreyas   Zinjharde   with   Shri   Marpakwar,   Advocates   for \n   \n\n\n\n     respondents No. 5 & 6.\n                           .....\n\n                                      CORAM :  B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                                                   MARCH 22 & 23, 2010.\n<\/p>\n
     ORAL JUDGMENT :\n<\/p>\n
                By   this   writ   petition,   filed   under   Articles   226   &   227   of <\/p>\n
     Constitution of India, the petitioner – Union has questioned the order <\/p>\n
     dated 20.03.2004 delivered by Member, Industrial Court in Complaint <\/p>\n
     ULP No. 148 of 1995, dismissing the same.  They have sough review <\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:45:06 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  3<\/span><\/p>\n
     of that order but that review was also dismissed on 02.04.2005.  After <\/p>\n
     dismissal of review, present writ petition has been filed.\n<\/p>\n
     2.           Complaint   ULP   was   filed   by   present   petitioner   as <\/p>\n
     Complainant No. 1 with other about 147 member-employees against <\/p>\n
     Respondents No. 5 & 6 under items 1, 5, 6 & 9 of Schedule IV of <\/p>\n
     Maharashtra  Recognition  of Trade Unions  and Prevention of Unfair <\/p>\n
     Labour Practices Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as MRTU & PULP <\/p>\n
     Act).   The prayer was to extend to all complainants the appropriate <\/p>\n
     pay scale applicable to the post held by them from the date of their <\/p>\n
     respective appointments and to pay them the arrears accordingly.  In <\/p>\n
     prayer clause declaration of unfair labour practice under items No. 2 & <\/p>\n
     3   of   Schedule   II   of   said   act   was   also   sought.     The   complaint   was <\/p>\n
     opposed by the employer and after appreciating the evidence led by <\/p>\n
     the   parties,   Industrial   Court   found   that   the   petitioners   could   not <\/p>\n
     establish   their   entitlement   to   pay   scales   as   prescribed   by   State <\/p>\n
     Government.  Industrial Court also relied upon one settlement at Exh.\n<\/p>\n
     48   between parties and noted that most of the witnesses examined <\/p>\n
     before it accepted that they were getting their salary in proper pay <\/p>\n
     scale.   The   Government   Notification   dated   27.07.1989   is   found   not <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:45:06 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 4<\/span><\/p>\n
     applicable to the complainants by it.\n<\/p>\n
     3.            In this back ground, I have heard Shri Parsodkar, learned <\/p>\n
     counsel   for   the   petitioner,   Shri   Mujumdar,   learned   AGP   for <\/p>\n
     respondents No. 1 & 4, Shri Thakre, learned counsel for respondent <\/p>\n
     No. 2 – Nagpur University, Shri Sundaram with Ms. Tanna, learned <\/p>\n
     counsel   for   respondent   No.   3   –   All   India   Council   for   Technical <\/p>\n
     Education   (A.I.C.T.E.)   and   Shri   Shreeyas   Zinjarde   with   Shri <\/p>\n
     Marpakwar, learned counsel for respondents No. 5 & 6.\n<\/p>\n
     4.           Shri   Parsodkar,   learned   counsel   has   contended   that   the <\/p>\n
     approach of Industrial Court in the matter has been erroneous as it <\/p>\n
     has not considered the entire material produced by the complainants.\n<\/p>\n
     He   states   that   the   document   at   Exhs.   41   to   44   filed   along   with <\/p>\n
     complaint   has   been   relied   upon   only   to   show   entitlement   of <\/p>\n
     complainants   to   pay   scales   and   revision   as   prescribed   by   said <\/p>\n
     documents.   In addition, Notification dated 27.07.1989 issued under <\/p>\n
     provisions of Nagpur University Act, 1974, in terms of Standard Code <\/p>\n
     was   also   relied   upon   but   its   statutory   character   has   not   been <\/p>\n
     considered by the Industrial Court.  He argues that undue importance <\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:45:06 :::<\/span>
\n                                                   5<\/span><\/p>\n
     has   been   given   to   settlement   at   Exh.   48   between   parties   and   said <\/p>\n
     settlement was provisional in nature and did not in any way prejudice <\/p>\n
     the legal contentions and rights of employees or the employer.   He, <\/p>\n
     therefore, states that unfair labour practice under item 9 was clearly <\/p>\n
     established   by   proving   out   that   pay   scales   prescribed   by   State <\/p>\n
     Government   were   not   extended   to   the   complainants.     He   further <\/p>\n
     points out that the employees were not given any appointment order <\/p>\n
     and also the orders of regularization were not served upon them.  The <\/p>\n
     regularization in 1993 is from the date of entry into service and hence <\/p>\n
     the employees ought to have been given the benefit of pay scales as <\/p>\n
     prescribed by Notification dated 27.07.1989 from the date on which <\/p>\n
     they were regularized.  The distinction made by Industrial Court while <\/p>\n
     holding   that   said   Notification   is   not   applicable   to   employees   on <\/p>\n
     consolidated   rates   of   pay   overlooks   the   fact   of   regularization.     He <\/p>\n
     points out that till date, there is nothing like pay scales prescribed by <\/p>\n
     All   India   Council   for   Technical   Education   (A.I.C.T.E.)   in   force   and <\/p>\n
     hence   the   mention   thereof   in   Exh.   48   or   in   its   order   by   Industrial <\/p>\n
     Court is erroneous.  The same cannot non suit the complainants.  He <\/p>\n
     has relied upon judgments in the case of Samnuggur Jute Factory Col  <\/p>\n
     Ltd.   (N.M.)   vs.   Its   Workmen,<\/a>   reported   at   1982   LIC   1354,  State   of  <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:45:06 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  6<\/span><\/p>\n
     Haryana   vs.   Rattan   Singh,<\/a>   reported   at   1997   LIC   845,  J.D.   Jain   vs.  <\/p>\n
     Management, State Bank of India,<\/a> reported at AIR 1982 SC 673 and <\/p>\n
     C.S. Vasava  vs. A.M. Ustad  & Ors., reported at 1993 III LLJ 431, to <\/p>\n
     substantiate his contention that technical rules of law of evidence are <\/p>\n
     not   applicable   in   welfare   jurisdiction   and   learned   Member   of <\/p>\n
     Industrial   Court   ought   to   have   looked   into   Notification   dated <\/p>\n
     27.07.1989.  He, therefore, prays for allowing the complaint as filed.\n<\/p>\n
     5.           The learned counsel for respondents No. 5 & 6 states that <\/p>\n
     complaint as filed was based upon documents at Exhs. 41 to 44 and <\/p>\n
     complainants   in   their   cross   examination   have   accepted   that   those <\/p>\n
     documents are not relevant for determining their service conditions.\n<\/p>\n
     He states that College of Respondents No. 5 & 6 was\/ is unaided and <\/p>\n
     hence the Government Notification dated 27.07.1989 is not attracted.\n<\/p>\n
     In the absence of any statutory instrument prescribing the pay scales, <\/p>\n
     the view taken by Industrial Court needs to be maintained and writ <\/p>\n
     petition deserves to be dismissed.  He states that settlement at Exh. 48 <\/p>\n
     was reached between parties and it was only with a view to put an <\/p>\n
     end to pending labour disputes.  Only the dispute in relation to bonus <\/p>\n
     was   kept   alive   and   left   for   determination   in   Court   while   all   other <\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:45:06 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  7<\/span><\/p>\n
     disputes including dispute in relation to pay scale was amicably settled <\/p>\n
     between   the   parties.     He   invites   attention   to   said   settlement   dated <\/p>\n
     18.01.1996   for   that   purpose.     He   has   also   pointed   out   that   the <\/p>\n
     employees have worked on different posts between their date of entry <\/p>\n
     till 1993.   In 1993, the employees were regularized on various posts <\/p>\n
     depending  upon  the  post  on  which he  was  found  working  and the <\/p>\n
     regularization   has   been   made   retrospectively   i.e.   from   the   date   on <\/p>\n
     which complainant\/ employee started working on that post.  He states <\/p>\n
     that these dates are different for different complainants and hence the <\/p>\n
     relief of pay scale cannot be given to them at this stage as demanded <\/p>\n
     as it will add to confusion and create complications.  He further states <\/p>\n
     that necessary facts to prove unfair labour practice under item 6 are <\/p>\n
     not established and hence exercise of regularization undertaken by the <\/p>\n
     employer cannot be faulted with and interfered with by this Court for <\/p>\n
     the   first   time.     According   to   him,   there   was   no   challenge   to   that <\/p>\n
     exercise even before Industrial Court.\n<\/p>\n
     6.           The learned counsel points out that various judgments on <\/p>\n
     which   reliance   has   been   placed   by   the   petitioner   deal   with   only <\/p>\n
     departmental   enquiries   and   are   not   applicable   in   present   matter.\n<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:45:06 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 8<\/span><\/p>\n
     Government Notification dated 27.07.1989 was not the basis of ULP <\/p>\n
     Complaint   as   filed   and   none   of   the   witnesses   for   complainants <\/p>\n
     deposed about it.  The said document was for the first time shown to <\/p>\n
     witness for management Shri Jain during his cross examination and <\/p>\n
     the witness stated that they had not received it.  In this situation, he <\/p>\n
     has   invited   attention   to   the   fact   that   learned   Member   of   Industrial <\/p>\n
     Court has held said notification not relevant as it excludes employees <\/p>\n
     receiving   consolidated  salary,  from  its   application.    He   argued   that <\/p>\n
     had that notification been properly pleaded and pressed into service <\/p>\n
     before   Industrial   Court,   respondents   No.   5   &   6   would   have   cross <\/p>\n
     examined the witness of complainants in the light of that document <\/p>\n
     and could have also brought on record necessary evidence to show <\/p>\n
     that the said notification is not applicable.\n<\/p>\n
     7.           He  has   invited  attention   to  prayers   in  ULP   Complaint  to <\/p>\n
     urge that though in body of complaint, there is no material, certain <\/p>\n
     irrelevant or unnecessary declarations are sought for.   According to <\/p>\n
     him,   the   challenge   in   present   writ   petition   is   circumscribed   by   the <\/p>\n
     relief sought before Industrial Court and, therefore, argues that the <\/p>\n
     alleged subsequent revision of pay scale or extension of benefit of 5th <\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:45:06 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 9<\/span><\/p>\n
     Pay   revision   is   not   the   subject   matter   for   adjudication   before   this <\/p>\n
     Court.\n<\/p>\n
     8.           Ms. Tanna, learned counsel states that Respondent No.3 –\n<\/p>\n
     A.I.C.T.E. was not the party before Industrial Court and it has been <\/p>\n
     joined as party respondent for the first time in this writ petition.  Shri <\/p>\n
     Thakre, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 – Nagpur University also <\/p>\n
     makes the same grievance.  The learned AGP for respondent – State of <\/p>\n
     Maharashtra  points out that State  of Maharashtra was  also not the <\/p>\n
     party before Industrial Court.\n<\/p>\n
     9.           The perusal of complaint as filed by the petitioner along <\/p>\n
     with its members show that by first prayer therein, the declaration of <\/p>\n
     indulging in unfair labour practice under various items was sought.\n<\/p>\n
     Item   No.   1   of   Scheduled   IV   of   MRTU   Act   deals   with   termination, <\/p>\n
     dismissal, discharge of employee and it is apparent that no case under <\/p>\n
     that item is even pleaded before Industrial Court.  Item 5 of Schedule <\/p>\n
     IV   contemplates   two   sets   of   employees   and   different   treatment   to <\/p>\n
     them regardless of merit.  Again necessary facts in this respect are not <\/p>\n
     pleaded   and   there   is   no   evidence   on   record   to   substantiate   unfair <\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:45:06 :::<\/span>
\n                                               10<\/span><\/p>\n
     labour practice.   Schedule II of MRTU & PULP Act deals with unfair <\/p>\n
     labour practices by employer against Union and item 2 thereof deals <\/p>\n
     with   employer   dominating   or   interfering   with   or   supporting   any <\/p>\n
     union.  Item 3 deals with employer establishing the sponsored unions.\n<\/p>\n
     Again the necessary pleadings and evidence in this respect have not <\/p>\n
     come on record. It is settled law that casual or loose drafting of such <\/p>\n
     Complaint by itself is not fatal.  This Court has to, therefore, consider <\/p>\n
     whether any unfair labour practice under items 6 & 9 of Schedule IV <\/p>\n
     of that Act is made out or not.  The positive direction sought against <\/p>\n
     the employer is to direct it to fix the wages of complainants 2 to 148 <\/p>\n
     in appropriate pay scale applicable to the post held by them from the <\/p>\n
     date of their respective appointment and to pay them the arrears, if <\/p>\n
     any, after such retrospective fixation.  The complaint with these reliefs <\/p>\n
     is   filed   sometime   in   the   month   of   February   1995.     The   reply   of <\/p>\n
     employer therein is filed on 09.06.1995.\n<\/p>\n
     10.          The memo of complaint as filed admittedly does not refer <\/p>\n
     to   the   Government   Resolution   dated   27.07.1989.     To   show   the <\/p>\n
     entitlement of complainants to pay scales and wage revision, reliance <\/p>\n
     has been placed in complaint only on four documents i.e. Exhs. 41 to <\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:45:06 :::<\/span>
\n                                              11<\/span><\/p>\n
     44.   The employer had disputed that entitlement.   These documents <\/p>\n
     are considered by learned Member of Industrial Court in para 8 of its <\/p>\n
     judgment.  The Industrial Court has found that said documents have <\/p>\n
     got no connection with establishment of Respondents No. 5 & 6 or <\/p>\n
     with service conditions of complainants.  It has, therefore, refused to <\/p>\n
     rely   upon   those   documents.     These   findings   of   learned   Member   of <\/p>\n
     Industrial Court are not in dispute before me.\n<\/p>\n
     11.         The learned Member of Industrial Court has further found <\/p>\n
     that there was an agreement at Exh. 48 between parties and A.I.C.T.E.\n<\/p>\n
     pay   scales   have   been   implemented   from   01.08.1995   insofar   as   the <\/p>\n
     complainants   are   concerned.     In   this   back   ground,   it   has   made <\/p>\n
     reference to admissions given by some of the complainants wherein <\/p>\n
     they accepted that at the relevant time, they were drawing their salary <\/p>\n
     in correct pay scales.   Because of this document at Exh. 48 and this <\/p>\n
     admission,   it   has   found   that   the   complainants   were   fixed   at <\/p>\n
     appropriate pay scale and there was no unfair labour practice.   This <\/p>\n
     application of mind can be gathered from para 9 of its judgment –\n<\/p>\n
     impugned order.\n<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:45:06 :::<\/span>
\n                                                12<\/span><\/p>\n
     12.          The perusal of Exh. 48 shows that it is a memorandum of <\/p>\n
     settlement and its contents are not in dispute between the parties.  As <\/p>\n
     per its clause (1), the demand for bonus was not acceptable to the <\/p>\n
     employer   and   parties   were,   therefore,   given   liberty   to   point   out   & <\/p>\n
     prove it in pending court matters.   Clause (3) speaks of demand for <\/p>\n
     pay scale and it states that various pay scales were discussed between <\/p>\n
     the   parties   and   ultimately,   A.I.C.T.E.   pay   scales   were   accepted   for <\/p>\n
     implementation by both the parties from 01.08.1995 only.  Clause (4) <\/p>\n
     thereof   speaks   of   necessity   of   maintaining   peace   and   harmony   in <\/p>\n
     College   premises   and   employees,   therefore,   agreed   to   abstain   from <\/p>\n
     commencing any strike or from staging demonstration or any kind of <\/p>\n
     agitation   for   their   demands   included   in   the   Charter   of   Demands <\/p>\n
     submitted to employer.  The said restriction was in force for a period <\/p>\n
     of three years from the date of signing of Exh. 48.  Clause (5) thereof <\/p>\n
     stipulated   that   parties   to   agreement   were   at   liberty   to   raise   their <\/p>\n
     claims and demands or to defend the same by approaching the Court <\/p>\n
     of Law and the settlement between the parties was arrived at with <\/p>\n
     clear understanding that it was without prejudice to their legal rights.\n<\/p>\n
     Thus,   the   entire   arrangement   in   this   settlement   show   that   it   was <\/p>\n
     arrived at only provisionally to restore peace in the establishment and <\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:45:06 :::<\/span>
\n                                               13<\/span><\/p>\n
     it did not bar adjudication by Competent Courts of various demands <\/p>\n
     included in charter of demand.  It is apparent that the demand for pay <\/p>\n
     scale   was   one   such   demand   and   hence   its   adjudication   before <\/p>\n
     Competent Court is not prohibited by Exh. 48.  The learned Member <\/p>\n
     of Industrial Court   has not appreciated this liberty & therefore, has <\/p>\n
     given undue importance to this document.\n<\/p>\n
     13.<\/p>\n
                  The ULP Complaint No. 148 of 1995 filed by the petitioners <\/p>\n
     was already pending when Exh. 48 was signed between the parties.\n<\/p>\n
     The events, therefore, clearly show that consideration of any challenge <\/p>\n
     in   that   ULP   Complaint   is   not   eclipsed   by   Exh.   48.     The   learned <\/p>\n
     Member   of   Industrial   Court,   therefore,   could   not   have   refused   to <\/p>\n
     decide the issue before him because of said document at Exh. 48.\n<\/p>\n
     14.          The  learned Member of  Industrial  Court  has  relied upon <\/p>\n
     admission   given   in   cross   examination   which   read   “at   present   I   am <\/p>\n
     getting correct pay-scale”.   This evidence in which the admission is <\/p>\n
     given has been recorded between 1999 to 2002.  Thus, because of this <\/p>\n
     admission, the grievance in complaint could not have been treated as <\/p>\n
     satisfied in any way by the learned Member of Industrial Court.  It has <\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:45:06 :::<\/span>
\n                                             14<\/span><\/p>\n
     not held that at the time when the complaint was filed, the witness <\/p>\n
     accepted that he was receiving his salary in correct pay-scale.   It has <\/p>\n
     not recorded any such finding  independently also. The dispute before <\/p>\n
     it warranted a finding that grievance about pay scale as made was <\/p>\n
     unsustainable because the employee was right from day one drawing <\/p>\n
     his salary in correct pay scale & its absence itself shows a jurisdictional <\/p>\n
     error.\n<\/p>\n
     15.         The question arises, what is that correct pay scale.  Exh. 48 <\/p>\n
     speaks of A.I.C.T.E. pay scale but then it is apparent that the same <\/p>\n
     were adopted only on ad-hoc basis and without prejudice to rights and <\/p>\n
     contentions of parties about it.   At this stage, before me, it is not in <\/p>\n
     dispute that though A.I.C.T.E. prescribed various pay scales, those pay <\/p>\n
     scales never came into force.   Thus, nothing like A.I.C.T.E. pay scale <\/p>\n
     was in force at any point of time. As that was not the pay scale, then <\/p>\n
     an   investigation   into   appropriate   pay   scale   as   per   the   service <\/p>\n
     conditions of employees in the light of various laws was essential. This <\/p>\n
     facet of the issue has not been gone into by the learned Member of <\/p>\n
     Industrial Court at all.\n<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:45:06 :::<\/span>
\n                                               15<\/span><\/p>\n
     16.          The perusal of ULP Complaint as filed particularly its para <\/p>\n
     1 shows the grievance made and that grievance is non fixation of pay <\/p>\n
     scale of complainants 2 to 148 in accordance with rules and for not <\/p>\n
     giving pay scales under 4th  Pay Commission which was applicable to <\/p>\n
     non teaching staff.  The further paras give the details of said grievance <\/p>\n
     with dates of appointments and relevant pay scales.  It is to be noted <\/p>\n
     that the pay scales applicable to the employees of Respondents No. 5 <\/p>\n
     & 6 are determined not by Respondents No. 5 & 6 but by State of <\/p>\n
     Maharashtra.   This position is not in dispute and witness Ajit Kumar <\/p>\n
     Jain examined by the management before the Industrial Court has in <\/p>\n
     his affidavit of examination-in-chief stated that service conditions of <\/p>\n
     non   teaching   employees   working   in   College   are   governed   by <\/p>\n
     provisions of Maharashtra Non Agricultural Universities and Affiliated <\/p>\n
     Colleges   Standard   Code   (Conditions   of   Service   of   Non   Teaching <\/p>\n
     Employees) Rules, 1984, (hereinafter referred to as Standard Code).\n<\/p>\n
     He has stated that the College is affiliated to Nagpur University and it <\/p>\n
     is   also   in   receipt   of   statutory   approval   granted   by   A.I.C.T.E.   on <\/p>\n
     20.09.1993.     He   has,   therefore,   deposed   that   the   College   and <\/p>\n
     management were bound by conditions of approval as prescribed by <\/p>\n
     A.I.C.T.E..  In para 3, he has stated that as per provisions of Rule 16 of <\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:45:06 :::<\/span>
\n                                               16<\/span><\/p>\n
     Standard Code, the College is required to pay non teaching employees <\/p>\n
     “Time   Scales”   of   pay   including   Special   Pay   as   prescribed   by   the <\/p>\n
     Government and as may be revised by Government from time to time.\n<\/p>\n
     However, then he added that till date, the Government has not issued <\/p>\n
     any   document   including   Government   Resolution   \/   circular\/ <\/p>\n
     communication\/ order etc. prescribing any such time pay scales of pay <\/p>\n
     for non teaching staff working in “non aided Engineering Colleges”\n<\/p>\n
     affiliated   to   Nagpur   University.     He   has   further   stated   that <\/p>\n
     Government   Resolutions   dated   21.04.1990   (Exh.   41),   02.09.1989 <\/p>\n
     (Exh.   42),   01.08.1989   (Exh.   43),  27.07.1989,   29.01.1990   and <\/p>\n
     15.01.1988   are   not   applicable   to   “non   aided   Engineering   Colleges”\n<\/p>\n
     affiliated to Nagpur University.   In  cross examination, his  attention <\/p>\n
     was invited to Government Resolution dated 04.07.1999 at Exh. 120 <\/p>\n
     which has been issued in furtherance of Standard Code and extended <\/p>\n
     the benefits of 5th Wage Revision.  The witness has stated that as his <\/p>\n
     College did not receive that Government Resolution, he was unable to <\/p>\n
     say anything about its contents or about its applicability.\n<\/p>\n
     17.         In   para   8   of   his   cross   examination,   he   accepted   that <\/p>\n
     Standard   Code   is   applicable   to   Non-teaching   staff   and   pay   scales <\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:45:06 :::<\/span>
\n                                               17<\/span><\/p>\n
     prescribed therein are applicable to employees from the date of their <\/p>\n
     appointment.     He   also   accepted   that   complainants   were   initially <\/p>\n
     appointed   on   consolidated   salary.     He   has   also   accepted   that   pay <\/p>\n
     scales are not prescribed by A.I.C.T.E.\n<\/p>\n
     18.         The perusal of Notification dated 27.07.1989 about which <\/p>\n
     this witness has deposed in his examination-in-chief, shows that it has <\/p>\n
     been issued in exercise of powers conferred by Section 77-A of Nagpur <\/p>\n
     University Act to which Respondent No. 6 – College is affiliated.  The <\/p>\n
     Notification   is   issued   by   Government   of   Maharashtra   providing   for <\/p>\n
     revised   pay   scales   of   non   teaching   employees   of   Non-Agricultural <\/p>\n
     Universities in Maharashtra State and all those in Affiliated Colleges <\/p>\n
     and Recognized institutions.   The said notification is not applicable <\/p>\n
     only   in   cases   of   Colleges\/   institutions   maintained   and   managed   by <\/p>\n
     State   Government   and   Local   authorities.     It   is   not   the   case   of <\/p>\n
     Respondents No. 5 & 6 that their college is maintained and managed <\/p>\n
     by State Government or any local authority.  The effort is to show that <\/p>\n
     said Government Resolution is not applicable because their institution <\/p>\n
     or college is non aided Engineering College.  The perusal of preamble <\/p>\n
     of Standard Code itself shows that it is for the employees of University <\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:45:06 :::<\/span>
\n                                                18<\/span><\/p>\n
     and   Affiliated   Colleges   and   Recognized   Institutions.     Its   clause   16 <\/p>\n
     deals with scales of pay and it stipulates that employees are entitled to <\/p>\n
     receive   their   salary   in   the   prescribed   pay   scale   unless   otherwise <\/p>\n
     directed. They are entitled to receive pay in the prescribed time scale <\/p>\n
     of   pay   by   the   Government   as   per   clause   16(2)     from   the <\/p>\n
     commencement up to cessation of service in the University or College <\/p>\n
     under the same management in the Cadre.  It is, therefore, apparent <\/p>\n
     that the time scale prescribed under Standard Code are applicable to <\/p>\n
     all   non   teaching   employees   unless   it   is   shown   that   there   is   some <\/p>\n
     direction to the contrary.  There is no direction to the contrary  being <\/p>\n
     pressed into service of Respondents No. 5 & 6.  They only bank upon <\/p>\n
     the fact that they are not receiving any grant in aid.   The receipt of <\/p>\n
     grant in aid or its non receipt is not a criterion prescribed by Standard <\/p>\n
     Code for its applicability.  Thus, witness for management and present <\/p>\n
     Respondents No. 5 & 6, therefore, have accepted that the Notification <\/p>\n
     dated   27.07.1989   issued   by   State   Government   in   exercise   of   these <\/p>\n
     powers under Standard Code is applicable to it.  The effort by them to <\/p>\n
     show that because it is unaided college, the same is not applicable, is <\/p>\n
     without   any   merit   and   cannot   be   countenanced.  Provisions   of   S.\n<\/p>\n
     43(1)(l)     of   the  Nagpur   University   Act,   1974  &   S.   81(1)(f) <\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:45:06 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 19<\/span><\/p>\n
     Maharashtra   Universities   Act,   1994   providing   for   the   terms   and <\/p>\n
     conditions of affiliation & recognition are itself   very clear and leave <\/p>\n
     no manner of doubt about applicability of said Clause 16(1) & (2) of <\/p>\n
     the Standard Code to complainants.  Employer is statutorily obliged to <\/p>\n
     extend pay scales prescribed  by the Government.  Here an irrelevant <\/p>\n
     reason is being pressed in to service to avoid its implementation. This <\/p>\n
     failure to   implement definitely attracts item 9 of Sch. IV of MRTU & <\/p>\n
     PULP Act.\n<\/p>\n
     19.          The learned counsel for Respondents No. 5 & 6 has urged <\/p>\n
     that   the   complaint   as   filed   nowhere   specifically   refers   to   this <\/p>\n
     notification   dated   27.07.1989   and   none   of   the   complainants   have <\/p>\n
     spoken   about   it   during   their   evidence.     As   such,   the   management <\/p>\n
     could   not   cross   examine   any   of   the   witnesses   examined   by <\/p>\n
     complainants in relation to this notification.  However, this argument <\/p>\n
     is   without   any   substance.     Briefly   I   have   already   mentioned   above <\/p>\n
     contents  of para 1 of the complaint.  The witness for management has <\/p>\n
     himself accepted the applicability of Standard Code and its relevance <\/p>\n
     in the matter and has tried to seek exclusion from it by contending <\/p>\n
     that   College   was   not   receiving   any   grant   in   aid.     This   material   on <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:45:06 :::<\/span>
\n                                               20<\/span><\/p>\n
     record   clearly   shows   that   the   argument   of   learned   counsel   for <\/p>\n
     respondents No. 5 & 6 is clearly by way of after thought.  However, by <\/p>\n
     way of abundant precaution, I have called upon the learned counsel to <\/p>\n
     point out any other specific objection to said notification or then the <\/p>\n
     possible prejudice which has been occasioned to it and Respondents <\/p>\n
     No. 5 & 6 are not in a position to demonstrate it or also show any <\/p>\n
     other     ground   for   seeking   exemption   from   applicability   of   said <\/p>\n
     notification.    Similarly, they are  not in  a position  to point  out  any <\/p>\n
     prejudice whatsoever caused to them because of non reference thereto <\/p>\n
     by the complainants in their evidence.   Respondents No. 5 & 6 are <\/p>\n
     having   a   College   which   is   affiliated   to   Nagpur   University   and   is <\/p>\n
     recognized by AICTE.  They are aware of all relevant legislations and <\/p>\n
     its requirements or obligations undertaken thereunder.   Even if the <\/p>\n
     complainants do not lead any evidence about the notification dated <\/p>\n
     27.07.1989 and relied upon it, respondents No. 5 & 6 cannot make <\/p>\n
     any grievance in the matter.   If they have   any other material with <\/p>\n
     them  to show why that notification is not applicable, the burden was <\/p>\n
     upon them. They have attempted to discharge it by pointing out only <\/p>\n
     the circumstance of non receipt of grant.   It is, therefore, clear that <\/p>\n
     Respondents No. 5 & 6 were also aware of relevance of Notification <\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:45:06 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  21<\/span><\/p>\n
     dated   27.07.1989   and   hence   in   its   chief,   the   witness   for   those <\/p>\n
     respondents   has   tried   to   point   out   why   said   notification   is   not <\/p>\n
     applicable in their case.\n<\/p>\n
     23\/03\/2010.\n<\/p>\n
     20.           Respondent   nos.   5   and   6   applied   for   affiliation   and <\/p>\n
     therefore,   were   aware   of   all   their   statutory   obligations   and <\/p>\n
     requirement to extend the pay-scales to the employees as per Standard <\/p>\n
     Code.   The burden was   upon them to point out why the pay scales <\/p>\n
     prescribed by the State Government in accordance with the  Standard <\/p>\n
     Code were not applicable and they have also attempted  to discharge <\/p>\n
     it   by   giving   irrelevant   reason.   Having   failed   therein,   the   stand   in <\/p>\n
     defence that the said Government notification was not referred  to by <\/p>\n
     any   of   the   witnesses   for   complainant   is   clearly   by   way   of   an   after <\/p>\n
     thought.\n<\/p>\n
     21.           The   4   precedents   mentioned   above   show   that   in <\/p>\n
     proceedings before the Tribunal under Industrial Disputes Act or then <\/p>\n
     in   domestic   enquiry   or   under   Workmens’   Compensation   Act,   the <\/p>\n
     technical rules of evidence are not attracted.     There can be no two <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:45:06 :::<\/span>
\n                                               22<\/span><\/p>\n
     opinions about said law but then these rulings are not relevant for <\/p>\n
     consideration of controversy before me.\n<\/p>\n
     22.          The employer has attempted to show that pay scales were <\/p>\n
     extended  to   all  employees  after  regularizing    them   and  this   fact  is <\/p>\n
     accepted   not   only   in   Exh.48,   but   also   in   their   evidence   by   the <\/p>\n
     employees.  The provisions of Item 9 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & <\/p>\n
     P.U.L.P. Act require the implementation of proper service conditions <\/p>\n
     and   petitioners   \/   complainants   are   therefore   entitled   to   pay   scale <\/p>\n
     meant for them as per the government notification dated 27.7.1989 as <\/p>\n
     as per Standard Code  because that is their service condition and grant <\/p>\n
     of any other pay scale to them cannot be  the answer to their demand <\/p>\n
     and to unfair labour practice under  Item 9 of Schedule IV.  It is not <\/p>\n
     disputed that a challenge to wage revision granted by the Industrial <\/p>\n
     Court on 25.08.2007 vide its order in complaint ULP No. 720\/2002 <\/p>\n
     has been rejected by this Court on 31.07.2008 in Writ Petition No. <\/p>\n
     5560\/2007.     There   the   employee   was   given   pay   sale   as   per <\/p>\n
     government   notification   dated   04.02.1999.     Said   notification   is   for <\/p>\n
     period   from   01.01.1996   onwards,   while   the   notification   (herein) <\/p>\n
     dated 27.07.1989 is for a period of 10 years prior to it.     In view of <\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:45:06 :::<\/span>
\n                                                23<\/span><\/p>\n
     this position, the admission by complainants that they are receiving <\/p>\n
     correct pay scales which has been recorded in their evidence after the <\/p>\n
     year 1999 is not decisive in any way.   Those admissions do not mean <\/p>\n
     that the complainants had no grievance in relation to the pay scales <\/p>\n
     extended to them after regularization i.e after 1993.\n<\/p>\n
     23.          The   facts   on   record   show   that   the   establishment   of <\/p>\n
     respondent nos. 5 and 6 was given necessary  approval by the AICTE <\/p>\n
     in   the   year   1993.     The   complainants   have   also   accepted   that   their <\/p>\n
     services have been regularized from different dates and those dates <\/p>\n
     are   of  the  year  1989,   1990  etc.,  depending  upon   the   date   of  their <\/p>\n
     entry into service. Different dates are given to different employees for <\/p>\n
     regularization.   Thus the employer has after receipt of the approval, <\/p>\n
     regularized the services retrospectively and also vide Exh.48 extended <\/p>\n
     some pay scales understood as AICTE pay scales from 01.08.1995.  In <\/p>\n
     this situation, burden to show that the employees were continued as <\/p>\n
     temporary   for   years   together   with   a   view   to   deprive   them   of   their <\/p>\n
     status   and   benefits   of   permanency,   was   upon   the   petitioners   \/ <\/p>\n
     complainants.     The evidence on record does not disclose the mode <\/p>\n
     and manner in which each complainant entered the service or then <\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:45:06 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 24<\/span><\/p>\n
     about   the   availability   of   clear   vacancy   prior   to   1993.   There   is   no <\/p>\n
     challenge   to   the   date   of   regularization   given   by   employer.   The <\/p>\n
     relevance   of   AICTE   approval   on   20\/9\/1993   qua   said   unfair   labour <\/p>\n
     practice or impact thereof on item 6 of Sch. IV is not addressed to <\/p>\n
     either   before   the   Industrial   Court   or   before   this   Court.   In   this <\/p>\n
     situation,   I   find   that   the   complainants\/   petitioners   have   filed   to <\/p>\n
     establish any unfair labour practice falling under Item 6 of Schedule <\/p>\n
     IV of the MRTU  Act.\n<\/p>\n
     24.          As already stated above, the entitlement of complainants <\/p>\n
     before the Industrial Court to pay scale was realized by the employer <\/p>\n
     and hence agreement at Exh.48 was reached between the parties on <\/p>\n
     18.01.1996.     Pay   scales   as   per   the   said   agreement   were   made <\/p>\n
     applicable from 01.08.1995 and that has been done without prejudice <\/p>\n
     to   the   rights   of   both   the   parties.     Thus   the   employer   left   the <\/p>\n
     complainants free to obtain appropriate relief in accordance with the <\/p>\n
     law in their pending ULP Complaint No. 148\/1995.   It appears that <\/p>\n
     when   the   parties   negotiated   settlement     which   culminated   into <\/p>\n
     Exh.48,   the   issue   of   pay   scales   prescribed   by   the   government   and <\/p>\n
     clause 16 of the Standard Code was not discussed at all.  Had it been <\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:45:06 :::<\/span>
\n                                                     25<\/span><\/p>\n
     so   discussed,   the   petitioners   would   have   definitely   made   a   grudge <\/p>\n
     about it in its ULP complaint.     The employer as also the employees <\/p>\n
     provisionally  accepted AICTE pay scales as solution of their problem.\n<\/p>\n
     The employer  has before the Industrial Court attempted to show that <\/p>\n
     the government notification dated 27.07.1989 is not applicable to its <\/p>\n
     establishment because it is un-aided college.   This distinction has not <\/p>\n
     been proved to be relevant on record and statute does not permit any <\/p>\n
     such classification for the purpose of applicability of that government <\/p>\n
     notification.  It is no doubt true that government notification stipulates <\/p>\n
     that it is not applicable to employees on consolidated rates of pay.\n<\/p>\n
     However,   those   consolidated   rates   of   pay   were   applicable   to <\/p>\n
     complainants   till   1993   and   admittedly   were   not   applicable   on <\/p>\n
     18.01.1996 when the agreement at Exh.48 was reached between the <\/p>\n
     parties.       In   fact   it   is   a   case   of   the   employer   that   after   receipt   of <\/p>\n
     approval in the year 1993, services of employees were regularized.\n<\/p>\n
     25.            At this stage, counsel for petitioner as also respondent 5 &6 <\/p>\n
     attempted to point out to this Court that some of the   complainants <\/p>\n
     were   appointed   directly   as   regular   employees.     It   is   obvious   that <\/p>\n
     thereafter or after retrospective  regularization the pay scales became <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:45:06 :::<\/span>
\n                                             26<\/span><\/p>\n
     applicable and hence the distinctive feature that they were employees <\/p>\n
     on consolidated rates of pay vanished & was therefore not available <\/p>\n
     before   the   Industrial   Court.   The   government   notification   dated <\/p>\n
     27.07.1989 therefore, could & ought to have  been  extended to the <\/p>\n
     complainants \/ members of petitioner union by respondents no.5 and <\/p>\n
     6.  In this situation, it is apparent that by not extending the pay scales <\/p>\n
     as   per  notification   dated  27.07.1989,  respondents   no.5  and  6  have <\/p>\n
     violated   service   conditions   of   complainants   &   indulged   in   unfair <\/p>\n
     labour practice falling under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & <\/p>\n
     PULP Act.\n<\/p>\n
     26.         The   discussion   above   shows   that   AICTE   has   granted <\/p>\n
     approval to the college of respondents no.5 and 6 in 1993.  Petitioners <\/p>\n
     have failed to establish any unfair labour practice falling under item <\/p>\n
     no.6 of Schedule IV.  The grievance made by them in relation to pay <\/p>\n
     scales was pending before the employer which ultimately resulted into <\/p>\n
     an   agreement at Exh.48 on 18.01.1996.   The pay scales known as <\/p>\n
     AICTE   pay   scales   were   then   extended   to   all   the   employees   by <\/p>\n
     respondent nos. 5 and 6 w.e.f. 01.08.1995.  Even after gathering that <\/p>\n
     AICTE pay scales are not applicable and are not determinative, the <\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:45:06 :::<\/span>
\n                                               27<\/span><\/p>\n
     employer has not taken any corrective measures in the matter though <\/p>\n
     at that time ULP complaint no.148\/1995 was already pending.       In <\/p>\n
     this   situation,   complainants   before   the   Industrial   “Court   are   held <\/p>\n
     entitled to arrears on account of wage revision\/ pay scales if any from <\/p>\n
     the date of grant of approval by AICTE i.e. 20.09.1993.  The relief of <\/p>\n
     grant of arrears from day one cannot be granted as no unfair labour <\/p>\n
     practice under item 6 is established by complainants\/petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
     27.          Writ Petition is thus partly allowed.  It is declared that by <\/p>\n
     not   extending   pay   scale   to   its   employees   [complainants   before   the <\/p>\n
     Industrial   Court]   as   per   the   government   notification   dated <\/p>\n
     27.07.1989, respondent nos. 5 and 6  have indulged in unfair labour <\/p>\n
     practice falling under item no.9 of schedule IV.  They are accordingly <\/p>\n
     directed   to   withdraw   that   unfair   labour   practice   by   extending   the <\/p>\n
     relief   of   said   pay   scales   to   the   complainants   by   fixing   them   in <\/p>\n
     appropriate pay scale as per post held by them from the date of their <\/p>\n
     regularization with arrears thereof payable only from the date of grant <\/p>\n
     of approval by AICTE i.e. from 20.09.1993. The arrears shall be paid <\/p>\n
     by respondent nos. 5 and 6 to the complainants in accordance with <\/p>\n
     the law within a period of 6 months from today.\n<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:45:06 :::<\/span>
\n                                             28<\/span><\/p>\n
     28.        Rule   accordingly.     However,   in   the   circumstances   of   the <\/p>\n
     case there shall be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                     JUDGE     <\/p>\n
                                         *******<\/p>\n
     *Rgd\/GS.\n<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:45:06 :::<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Kamla Neharu Abhiyantriki vs State Of Maharashtra on 23 March, 2010 Bench: B. P. Dharmadhikari 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH WRIT PETITION NO. 3802 OF 2005 Shri Ramdeobaba Kamla Nehru Abhiyantriki Mahavidyalaya Shikshaketar Karmachari Sanghatana, Registered under the Trade Unions Act, through its President Shri Nandkishor […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-34166","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKamla Neharu Abhiyantriki vs State Of Maharashtra on 23 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamla-neharu-abhiyantriki-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-23-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kamla Neharu Abhiyantriki vs State Of Maharashtra on 23 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamla-neharu-abhiyantriki-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-23-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-03-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-12T22:27:31+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"26 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamla-neharu-abhiyantriki-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-23-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamla-neharu-abhiyantriki-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-23-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kamla Neharu Abhiyantriki vs State Of Maharashtra on 23 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-12T22:27:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamla-neharu-abhiyantriki-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-23-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":5104,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamla-neharu-abhiyantriki-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-23-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamla-neharu-abhiyantriki-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-23-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamla-neharu-abhiyantriki-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-23-march-2010\",\"name\":\"Kamla Neharu Abhiyantriki vs State Of Maharashtra on 23 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-12T22:27:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamla-neharu-abhiyantriki-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-23-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamla-neharu-abhiyantriki-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-23-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamla-neharu-abhiyantriki-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-23-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kamla Neharu Abhiyantriki vs State Of Maharashtra on 23 March, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Kamla Neharu Abhiyantriki vs State Of Maharashtra on 23 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamla-neharu-abhiyantriki-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-23-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kamla Neharu Abhiyantriki vs State Of Maharashtra on 23 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamla-neharu-abhiyantriki-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-23-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-12T22:27:31+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"26 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamla-neharu-abhiyantriki-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-23-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamla-neharu-abhiyantriki-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-23-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kamla Neharu Abhiyantriki vs State Of Maharashtra on 23 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-12T22:27:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamla-neharu-abhiyantriki-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-23-march-2010"},"wordCount":5104,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamla-neharu-abhiyantriki-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-23-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamla-neharu-abhiyantriki-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-23-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamla-neharu-abhiyantriki-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-23-march-2010","name":"Kamla Neharu Abhiyantriki vs State Of Maharashtra on 23 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-12T22:27:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamla-neharu-abhiyantriki-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-23-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamla-neharu-abhiyantriki-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-23-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamla-neharu-abhiyantriki-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-23-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kamla Neharu Abhiyantriki vs State Of Maharashtra on 23 March, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34166","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=34166"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34166\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=34166"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=34166"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=34166"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}