JUDGMENT - R.J. KOCHAR, J.:---The petitioner company has challenged the judgment and order dated 2nd April, 1990 passed by the Industrial Court, Maharashtra at Ahmednagar in Complaint (ULP) No. 296 of 1987, filed by the respondent employee under section 28 read with Items 5, 7, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. P.U.L.P. Act, 1971. 2. The facts, which are not seriously disputed, are that the respondent employee was employed by the petitioner company from 17th July, 1983 to 6th October, 1984. By an appointment order dated 25th March, 1984 he was taken on probation for a period of six months from 7th April, 1984 and he was paid daily wages at the rate of Rs. 24/-. His services were terminated with effect from 6th October, 1984. The respondent employee raised an industrial dispute to question the legality and propriety of the termination order which came to be set aside by an award of the Labour Court dated 27th May, 1987 and he was directed to be reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages. The petitioner company accepted the said award and reinstated him on 21st September, 1987. The nub of the complaint of the respondent employee is that after reinstatement he was not given the benefits of two settlements in force dated 25th September, 1982 and 29th May, 1986 entered between the recognized union and the petitioner company. The grievance of the respondent employee was that even after reinstatement he was not given any pay scale but he was paid his wages at the rate of Rs. 24/- per day. He, therefore, filed the present complaint of unfair labour practice before the Industrial Court mainly claiming the benefits of the settlements which, according to him, the petitioner company had failed to implement. In the complaint, he had specifically averred that he was employed as a highly skilled workman and he was wrongly continued to be paid Rs. 24/- per day. He, therefore, prayed for declaration and direction to the petitioner company that it had engaged in an unfair labour practice while not implementing the settlement qua the respondent employee and that it should be directed to implement the settlements by making payment to him on the basis of the settlements in force. The petitioner company appeared before the Industrial Court and filed its written statement to contest the complaint filed by the respondent employee. The petitioner company appeared before the Industrial Court and filed its written statement to contest the complaint filed by the respondent employee. It denied the case of the respondent employee that he was a highly skilled workman and that the petitioner had not implemented the terms of the settlements qua him. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned member of the Industrial Court framed as many as seven issues and answered them in favour of the respondent employee after recording oral evidence. The respondent employee had adduced his whole oral evidence while the petitioner company did not lead any evidence in rebuttal and did not step in the witness box at all to prove its own case or to dislodge the case of respondent employee. In the oral evidence of the respondent employee he has categorically and specifically stated on oath that the work which he was doing was of highly skilled nature and he had given specific job description. He has also stated that other co-workers who were appointed alongwith him were also doing the same work of highly skilled nature. There is hardly any cross examination on this fact sworn by him before the Industrial Court. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence before the Industrial Court, it has accepted the case of the respondent employee that he was doing the work of highly skilled nature and that he had proved the same fully and consequently it was held by the Industrial Court that by not applying the settlements to him it had engaged in an unfair labour practice, within the meaning of Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act as alleged by the respondent employee. 3. Shri Joshi, the learned Advocate for the petitioner company has assailed the said judgment and order of the learned member of the Industrial Court on the ground that the question of classification could not have been decided by the Industrial Court in such a complaint. He has also urged that there was no specific issue in respect of classification of the employees and, therefore, in a complaint of unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act the Industrial Court had no jurisdiction to decide such questions. He has also pointed out that the respondent employee was put in the semiskilled grade as per the settlement and he was being paid accordingly. He has also pointed out that the respondent employee was put in the semiskilled grade as per the settlement and he was being paid accordingly. As against the said submission of Shri Joshi, Shri Prabhakaran, the learned Advocate for the respondent employee has supported the judgment of the Industrial Court. He has taken me through the pleadings and also the oral evidence adduced by the respondent employee. According to him, the respondent employee had positively led evidence to show that he was doing the work of highly skilled nature. He has given specific job description and that he had not vaguely stated that he was doing the work of highly skilled nature. He has also argued that the petitioner company, having not adduced any oral evidence and having not proved the documents by examining the concerned witnesses, it was definitely gone by default and the case which the company had pleaded in the written statement has not been proved at all. He has also pointed out that there was no cross examination of the respondent employee on the point of the job description and on the point that he was doing that work which was of highly skilled nature. 4. According to me, the submissions of Shri Prabhakaran deserve to be accepted. Shri Joshi has been fair to the Court by not pressing the absurd pleas taken by the petitioner company before the Industrial Court that the respondent employee continued to be on probation even after reinstatement in accordance with the award. He was also fair enough to submit that there was lapse on the part of the petitioner company by not adducing the evidence before the Industrial Court. 5. The Industrial Court has exhaustively dealt with all the points which were pleaded and argued before it. According to me, the Industrial Court has rightly held that the respondent employee, on reinstatement, had become permanent in view of the provisions of the Model Standing Orders and that he could not have been continued on probation indefinitely. Shri Joshi had rightly pointed out that the petitioner company had accepted him as permanent employee and had issued him an order of placing him in the category of semiskilled workman. Shri Joshi had rightly pointed out that the petitioner company had accepted him as permanent employee and had issued him an order of placing him in the category of semiskilled workman. The net result of the pleadings, evidence and the law is that after reinstatement pursuant to the award passed by the Labour Court the respondent employee, having become permanent in employment, was entitled to the benefits of the settlements which were not rightly extended to him. His case that he was doing the work of highly skilled nature will have to be accepted as he has averred what work he was doing while the petitioner company has failed to disprove the said positive case of the respondent employee. There is nothing on record to show that the work which the respondent employee was doing was that of semiskilled nature or unskilled nature or in what category it fell. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Industrial Court has not committed any illegality in accepting the case of the respondent employee that he was doing the work of highly skilled nature and was not being paid pay scale of that category in accordance with the settlements. 6. It is an admitted position that the respondent employee was designated as Machine Operator. He himself has categorically described his job, which is not disputed in his cross examination. There is absolutely no evidence why he was given the semiskilled grade and why not the category or grade of highly skilled was given to him. The respondent employee had tried his level best to prove his own case of classification i.e. the work which he was doing was of highly skilled nature by relying on the similar work which was being done by his colleagues who were getting the same pay scale. The petitioner company, however, tried to falsify his case by producing some letters issued to those co-workers to show that they were placed in semiskilled category. These letters have not been proved by the petitioner company as no one was examined to prove these documents. The Industrial Court was rightly commented that such letters were not believable which appear to have been fabricated to falsify the case of the employee that his colleagues were getting the pay scale of a highly skilled workman. These letters have not been proved by the petitioner company as no one was examined to prove these documents. The Industrial Court was rightly commented that such letters were not believable which appear to have been fabricated to falsify the case of the employee that his colleagues were getting the pay scale of a highly skilled workman. Barring those letters, there is absolutely no other material adduced by the petitioner company to question the case of the respondent employee that he was not doing the work of highly skilled nature as a Machine Operator. The Industrial Court has dealt with the issues exhaustively and there is absolutely no infirmity to interfere with the said order of the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court has rightly found that the respondent employee was doing the work of highly skilled nature and was, therefore, entitled to the benefits of the settlements prevailing in the petitioner company. There is absolutely no merits in the petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed with no orders as to costs. Rule is discharged. Expedite the issuance of certified copy. Petition dismissed. -----