Khandeparkar R.M.S., J.
1. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioners. None present for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, though served. Perused the records.
2. Only grievance which is made in the present case is that inspite of the fact that the petitioners had claimed that they are entitled for NTC scale on par with the other employees, considering the identity of the nature and the duties of the petitioners vis a vis those of the said employees, the Industrial Court while dismissing the complaint filed under section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, failed to address itself to the said issue and the complaint has been rejected solely on the ground that the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 are not applicable to the workers, employed in the retail shop of the mill.
3. Bare perusal of the impugned judgment itself discloses that it was the case of the petitioners that they were appointed by the respondents in their showroom but they were neither paid the salary as per the service conditions those are applicable to the employees of the Kohinoor Mills though the service conditions were governed under the Act of 1946, nor they were paid the salary on par with the NTC scale even though they are entitled for the said scale otherwise applicable to the employees under the Act of 1946. Even after taking note of the said grievance of the petitioners in their complaint, the Industrial Court has proceeded only to decide the issue pertaining to the applicability of the Act of 1946, without addressing itself to the issue as to whether the duties performed by the petitioners are identical to those of the other employees and whether the petitioners are entitled for the NTC scale or not. Once the petitioners had approached the Industrial Court complaining about the adoption of unfair labour practices by their employer on the ground of non-payment of the salary of the NTC scale, inspite of the duties performed by the petitioners being identical to those performed by the other employees, who are paid with the salary at the BIR scale, it was necessary for the Court below to analyse the materials on record in relation to the said grievance and to arrive at a proper finding in accordance with the provisions of law. Having failed to do so, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained to the extent it fails to deal with the points which we raised by the petitioners and referred to above. In the circumstances, while setting aside the impugned order, it is necessary to remand the matter to the Industrial Court to deal with the above issue raised by the petitioners and decide the same, after hearing the parties, in accordance with the provisions of law. Needless to say that considering the fact that the complaint was filed in the year 1991, the Industrial Court shall expedite the hearing of the matter and shall dispose of the same on or before 31-12-2003.
4. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the Industrial Court to decide the above referred issues in accordance with the provisions of law, after hearing the parties, on or before 31-12-2003. The Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.