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 … 2026:BHC-AUG:14497 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