S. K. KESHOTE, J. ( 1 ) AS both these writ petitions have arisen from the same award of the industrial Tribunal, Gujarat, made in Reference (IT) No. 207 of 1979 on 5. 1. 1981 and as such the same are being decided by this common order. ( 2 ) THE petitioners in writ petition No. 4118/81 viz. The Gujarat Market Committee staff Union had raised industrial dispute in respect of certain demands made by it. The dispute raised by the aforesaid Union has been referred for adjudication by the State of gujarat in exercise of its powers under Section 10 (1) (a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Industrial Tribunal, Gujarat. The demands which were the subject matter of the reference, are as follows: demand Classification of Bazar Samitis. The Bazar Samiti should be no. 1: classified as under: class - A: The Samitis with an annual income more than rupees one lakh. Class - B: The samitis with an annual income ranging from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/ -. Class - C: The Samitis with an annual income ranging between Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 50,000/ -. Class - D: The remaining Samitis. Demand No. 2 : Pay Scales: the pay scales of the workman working in different classes of Samitis should be revised as per effect from 1. 1. 1973. Demand No. 3 : On there being increase in the income of a Samiti after considering such increase for three years, the said Samiti should be re-classified and the appropriate pay-scale to workmen should be given with effect from the year in which the income has increased. Demand No. 4 : In case of a workman reaches the maximum of the payscale applicable to him, he should be given further increment at the rate of his last increment. ( 3 ) THE sangh examined one Jethalal Kodarlal at Ex. 4. Shri Jethalal, in his deposition has stated that he is working as a Secretary in the Bazar Samiti and he is the General secretary of the Union; that the classification of the Samitis has been made on the basis of income, that those Samitis whose income is more than Rs. one lakh have been classified as "a" class, those whose income is between Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- as "b" class; those between Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- as "c" Class and those below Rs. one lakh have been classified as "a" class, those whose income is between Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- as "b" class; those between Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- as "c" Class and those below Rs. 25,000/- "d" class. However the Director without giving any notice has changed this classification according to which those income is more than Rs. 2 lakhs are class "a" Class; those ranging between Rs. 1 lakhs and Rs. 2 lakhs have been classed as "b" Class those ranging between Rs. 50000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- have been classed as "c" class and those below Rs. 50,000/- has been classed as "d" class; objections have not been invited before making these changes nor any discussions held; in view of this change in classification, the workmen have been getting less wages. He further stated that as per service Regulation no. 7 the payscales should be as per Government scales from time to time and so their demand is for payscales as per the Desai Pay Commission with effect from 1. 1. 1973. He further stated that at present peon, Naik, Clerk, and watchman are getting the same payscale in all classes which is not proper and their payscales should be as per the payscales shown in the Annexure. In regard to the last demand, he stated that when a workman reaches the maximum of the payscales, he ceased to get any further increment but he should be given increment at the rate of his last increment. As nobody was present on behalf of the samitis, this witness was not cross-examined. Even the Chariman of the godhara Samiti who was present on 29. 4. 1980 has by a purshis Ex. 5 stated that he has no submissions to make and orders be passed as deemed fit. ( 4 ) AFTER considering the evidence both, documentary as well as oral, produced by the sangh before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has decided the reference vide Award dated 5. 1. 1981. The demands No. 1 and 2 was allowed in favour of the workmen. The demand no. 3 was partly allowed in favour of the workmen and partly allowed in favour of market committee. The demand No. 4 has been disallowed. Both, the Management and the union has come up before this Court against the award of Industrial Tribunal to the extent it goes against them. The demand no. 3 was partly allowed in favour of the workmen and partly allowed in favour of market committee. The demand No. 4 has been disallowed. Both, the Management and the union has come up before this Court against the award of Industrial Tribunal to the extent it goes against them. ( 5 ) THE writ petition No. 4118/81 has been admitted by this Court on 25th January 1982. Special Civil Application No. 256/82 has come up for admission before this Court on 1st March 1982, on which date the following order has been passed:"to be heard along with the Special Civil Application No. 4118 of 1981. I do not find any order from the record of the admission of this petition. The fact remains that in writ petition No. 256/82 no stay order has been granted against the operation of the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad. Both the parties are not of issue on the question that the benefits as per the Award of Industrial tribunal, Ahmedabad has been given to all the beneficiaries workmen. " ( 6 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties. The learned Counsel for the petitioner in special Civil Application No. 4118 of 1981 contended that the Industrial Tribunal has committed serious irregularity in deciding the demand No. 3 partly in favour of the management. The contention of the learned Counsel of the petitioner is that though the substance of the demand has been accepted but its implementation has not been properly appreciated. The learned Counsel for the petitioners carrying further his argument contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in holding that higher pay scale should be given in the year next following the third year of the increase of the income of the committee. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that though the workmen may become entitle for higher pay scale when the income of the committee has been increased in successive three years, but it has to relate back to year in which the first increase has been made in the income of committee. So far as the demand No. 4 is concerned it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that on stagnation the workmen should have been allowed to the increment at the rate of last increment. So far as the demand No. 4 is concerned it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that on stagnation the workmen should have been allowed to the increment at the rate of last increment. ( 7 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondents placed reliance on Rule 40-A of the gujarat Agricultural Produce Market Committee Rules, 1964 and contended that the higher pay scale can only be granted to the employees on increase of the income of the committee subject to the availability of sufficient funds. I do not find any substance in this contention for the reason that Rule: 41 (A) has been inserted in after the decision of the present case by the Industrial Tribunal. Under Rule: 41 (A) of the Rule, 1964 the pay scale to be given to the employees working in the market committee of different classification are prescribed. Those pay scale are to be given, but subject to the availability of the funds. This Rule has not been given retrospective effect. ( 8 ) AFTER going through the award of the Industrial Tribunal I do not find any infirmity therein. The Industrial Tribunal has rightly held that the entitlement of the higher pay scale on increase of the income of the committee is available after next following the third year. This seems to be reasonable approach because the Mandli samiti are working on no profit no loss basis. The Mandli Samiti has been constituted by the State Government by framing the Gujarat Agricultural Produce market committee Act for the benefits of the farmers so that they may get maximum profits of their agricultural produce. The profit motive is not there in the Mandli Samiti. In view of this fact the provision that in case the income of a particular samiti increases for three successive years then only the case for up-grading of classification will arise is reasonable. For up-gradation of the classification and the consequential entitlement of higher pay scale based on increase of the income for three successive years. The benefit will only acrrue to the beneficiaries in the year next following the third years. The interpretation put by the Tribunal to this requirement is prefectly legal and justified and also in consquence with the object and the purpose for which Mandli Agricultural produce Market Committee has been constituted. The benefit will only acrrue to the beneficiaries in the year next following the third years. The interpretation put by the Tribunal to this requirement is prefectly legal and justified and also in consquence with the object and the purpose for which Mandli Agricultural produce Market Committee has been constituted. ( 9 ) IN view of these facts and circumstances the award passed by the Industrial tribunal on Demand No. 3 is legal and does not call for any interference of this Court. ( 10 ) THE demand of the petitioner Union pertains to stagnation increment to the employees who have reached the maximum of the pay scale has also rightly been disallowed by the Tribunal. The petitioner union has not produced any material whatsoever to justify this demand. The increment are to be provided either by some Rules or Regulation or Circular or Resolution of the State Government or as the case may be, of the appropriate authority. Merely because the employee may reach to the maximum of the pay scale it does not given any right to him for this increment unless he may have given such right by the Rules or Regulation or Circular or resolution which is not the case here. Merely the hardship likely to cause does not give any right to the employees for the increment after reaching to the maximum of the pay scale. The petitioner union has failed to make out any case of the Demand No. 4. The Industrial Tribunal has committed no error whatsoever in rejecting this demand. ( 11 ) IN view of aforesaid discussion, Special Civil Application No. 4118 of 1981 fails and the same is dismissed. Rule is discharged: special Civil Application No. 256 of 1982 has not been admitted. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this petition at length I do not find any illegality in the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal to the extent it goes against the petitioner which warrants intereference of this Court. The classification of the Mandli Samiti was in existence upto 9. 6. 1977. This classification has unilaterally been changed which has resulted in the lower wages to the employees working in the committee. It is not the case of the petitioner that before making the change of the existing classification any opportunity of hearing has been given to the affected persons. 6. 1977. This classification has unilaterally been changed which has resulted in the lower wages to the employees working in the committee. It is not the case of the petitioner that before making the change of the existing classification any opportunity of hearing has been given to the affected persons. Before taking such a decision it was obligatory on the part of the petitioner to follow the principle of natural justice which has not been done in the present case. In view of this fact I do not find any substance in the petition. In the result this petition fail and the same dismissed. .