The Bombay High Court has clarified that a claim of unfair labour practice under the MRTU and PULP Act cannot be sustained merely on allegations of wage disparity without establishing precise comparability of posts, duties, and appointment status. The judgment underscores the necessity of concrete factual foundations in equal pay claims and rejects judicial imposition of pay scales absent statutory or contractual entitlement.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The respondent, Vineeta Dass, alleged that she had been employed since August 2005 as a Clerk-cum-Lab Assistant at the petitioner institution, Modern College of Arts, Science and Commerce, Pune. She claimed she was paid a monthly salary of Rs. 3,800, while junior employees performing similar duties received Rs. 8,000 to Rs. 9,000 per month. She further alleged that she was denied appointment or promotion to permanent posts of Junior Clerk or Lab Assistant in 2007 and 2009, despite applying for them, and that this constituted unfair labour practice under Items 5, 6, 9, and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.
Key Facts
- The respondent commenced service on 01.08.2005 with a monthly salary of Rs. 3,000, later increased to Rs. 3,800
- She held a qualification of Second Year B.Com. and had not completed graduation
- The petitioner institution offered both aided (government-funded) and unaided (self-financed) courses
- Posts in aided courses were governed by the Standard Code of 1984, prescribing minimum pay scales of Rs. 8,200 for Clerks and Rs. 8,500 for Lab Assistants
- The respondent was engaged in the Biotechnology Department, an unaided unit
- No sanctioned post of Clerk-cum-Lab Assistant existed as per the petitioner’s records
- In 2007, a vacancy arose for a permanent Lab Assistant/Junior Clerk in the General Category; the respondent applied but was not selected; Tima Vilas Lad and Vaishali Deshpande were appointed
- In August 2009, another vacancy arose; the respondent applied but was not called for interview, allegedly due to exceeding the upper age limit by a few months
- The respondent was never appointed to a permanent, sanctioned, or government-approved post
- The petitioner maintained that service conditions for unaided units were governed by contractual arrangements, not the Standard Code
Procedural History
- 01.08.2005: Respondent commenced service
- 2007: First vacancy for permanent post; respondent not selected
- August 2009: Second vacancy; respondent not called for interview
- 2009: Complaint (ULP) No. 202 of 2009 filed before the Industrial Court, Pune
- 19.11.2014: Industrial Court held petitioner guilty of unfair labour practice under Item 5 of Schedule IV; directed payment of pay scale applicable to Junior Clerks in aided colleges from 2005, with arrears to be paid within three months
- 19.11.2014: Industrial Court rejected respondent’s claim for appointment/promotion to the post of Junior Lab Assistant or Clerk
- 2015: Writ Petition No. 79 of 2015 filed before the Bombay High Court
- 23.04.2026: Case reserved
- 30.04.2026: Judgment pronounced
The Parties' Positions
Petitioner (College): Contended that the respondent was never appointed to a sanctioned or aided post; the Standard Code did not apply; the institution was not an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act; the complaint lacked specificity; and the Industrial Court lacked jurisdiction as disputes were governed by the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, and its Grievance Committee.
Respondent (Vineeta Dass): Argued she was a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act and an employee under the MRTU and PULP Act; her duties were identical to those of aided staff; the disparity in pay constituted unfair labour practice; and the Industrial Court had exclusive jurisdiction.
Relief Sought
The respondent sought: (1) a declaration that unfair labour practices were committed; (2) cessation of such practices; (3) payment of salary in the prescribed scale of Rs. 8,200 - 8,500 from August 2005; (4) arrears of salary; and (5) appointment or promotion to the post of Junior Lab Assistant or Clerk.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Item 5 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act permits a finding of unfair labour practice based on wage disparity when the complainant has not established that the comparators held posts with identical duties, qualifications, appointment status, and funding source.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel argued that the complaint was legally defective for failing to name the comparators, specify their appointment status (aided/unaided), or establish similarity in duties and qualifications. He relied on the principle that mere wage disparity does not constitute unfair labour practice unless discrimination regardless of merit is proven. He emphasized that the respondent was never appointed to a sanctioned post and that the Standard Code applied only to permanent employees in aided units. He further contended that the Industrial Court’s dual findings - denying appointment but granting pay parity - were mutually inconsistent and legally unsustainable. He distinguished Raskar Vidya Damodar @ Bhujbal Vidya v. Maharashtra Arogyamandal on the ground that the employee in that case was appointed to a permanent post under the MEPS Act.
For the Respondent
Learned counsel contended that the respondent was an employee under the MRTU and PULP Act and a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act. He argued that the petitioner institution was an industry, and the respondent’s duties were identical to those of aided staff. He asserted that the Standard Code applied to all affiliated colleges and that the respondent’s long service and unblemished record entitled her to parity. He relied on the principle of equal pay for equal work and contended that the Industrial Court had correctly exercised jurisdiction, rejecting the petitioner’s plea of alternate remedy under the Maharashtra Universities Act.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by emphasizing that Item 5 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act requires a serious, specific allegation of favouritism or partiality exercised regardless of merit. Vague assertions of wage disparity, without identifying comparators or their employment conditions, cannot sustain a finding of unfair labour practice.
"The person making such allegation is required to state the case with reasonable clearness. Many times one employee may receive different treatment because of qualification, seniority, efficiency, or nature of appointment. Unless these distinctions are ruled out every difference in treatment cannot become unfair labour practice."
The Court noted that the respondent’s complaint failed to name any of the allegedly better-paid employees, their appointment status, or the nature of their duties. The absence of these particulars rendered the complaint legally insufficient. The Court held that pleadings are the foundation of evidence, and evidence cannot cure a defective pleading.
The Court further examined the distinction between aided and unaided posts. It observed that educational institutions often operate dual streams: one funded by the government with fixed pay scales, and another self-financed with contractual terms. Merely because the same management oversees both does not equate the posts. The respondent was engaged in an unaided department, and no evidence established that her role was equivalent to those in the aided cadre.
"Unless comparative evidence is brought, similarity in few tasks cannot establish identity of post."
The Court also highlighted the contradiction in the Industrial Court’s order: it denied the respondent’s claim for appointment or promotion to the post of Junior Lab Assistant or Clerk, yet granted her the pay scale of that very post. The Court held that such a finding was legally untenable. If the respondent was not entitled to the post, she could not be granted the emoluments of the post by indirect means.
The Court distinguished Raskar Vidya Damodar @ Bhujbal Vidya on the ground that the employee in that case was appointed to a permanent, sanctioned post under the MEPS Act, whereas the respondent here was not. The Industrial Court’s reliance on that precedent was therefore misplaced.
The Court concluded that while the respondent’s long service may evoke sympathy, judicial relief must be grounded in legal rights, not compassion. Absent proof of comparable appointment, duties, and statutory entitlement, no claim for pay parity could succeed.
The Verdict
The writ petition was allowed. The judgment and order dated 19 November 2014 of the Industrial Court was quashed and set aside. Complaint (ULP) No. 202 of 2009 was dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending interim applications stood disposed of.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Pleadings Must Specify Comparators
- Practitioners must plead the names, designations, appointment status (aided/unaided), and duties of comparators in unfair labour practice cases
- Vague allegations of "junior employees" receiving higher pay will be dismissed at the threshold
- Failure to specify these details renders the complaint legally defective under Item 5 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act
Pay Parity Requires Identical Post Status
- Equal pay claims cannot be sustained merely on overlapping duties
- The Court requires proof of identical: (a) appointment status (permanent/temporary), (b) funding source (aided/unaided), and (c) qualification requirements
- Pay scales under institutional codes apply only to employees appointed to sanctioned posts
Appointment Denial Precludes Pay Scale Grant
- If a claim for appointment or promotion is rejected, a parallel claim for the pay scale of that post cannot be granted
- Judicial orders cannot circumvent appointment denials by awarding equivalent remuneration
- This prevents indirect enforcement of promotion claims through wage orders
Jurisdictional Boundaries in Educational Institutions
- Disputes involving unaided units of universities or colleges may fall outside the Industrial Court’s purview
- The Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, and its Grievance Committee may provide the exclusive remedy for service disputes in such institutions
- Practitioners must carefully assess whether the institution’s funding model determines jurisdiction
