ORAL JUDGMENT : All these three writ petitions challenge common order dated 14.12.2006 delivered by the Member, Industrial Court, Chandrapur, directing the petitioners . Municipal Councils to pay 15% incentive payable in naxal affected areas from August 2002 as per Government Resolution dated 6.8.2002 to its employees. 2. This Court has on 13.8.2007, while issuing Rule, permitted the Municipal Councils to pay such allowance to its employees, if it wanted to implement its own resolution. By order dated 30.8.2007, this Court has granted interim relief and stayed the operation and effect of impugned order dated 14.12.2006. 3. The facts are not much in dispute. Respondent No.1 in all these writ petitions is a Registered Trade Union and had filed a Complaint (ULPA) No. 65 of 2005 on behalf of its members spread over in Municipal Council, Chandrapur, Municipal Council, Mul and Municipal Council, Ballarshah, contending that by not extending benefit of Government Resolution dated 6.8.2002, to those members, the respective Municipal Councils have indulged in Unfair Labour Practice falling under item No. 9 of Schedule IV of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices, Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as MRTU & PULP Act). The respective Municipal Councils filed their written statements and opposed the claim. By common order dated 14.12.2006, the learned Member of Industrial Court found that Respondent No.1 . Trade Union succeeded in establishing that there was unfair labour practice falling under item No. 9 and present petitioners were found to have indulged in it by not implementing the Government Resolution dated 6.8.2002 and subsequent Government Resolutions dated 18.8.2004 and 7.12.2004. It is to be noted that the General body of petitioners . Municipal Councils in the meanwhile had also passed a resolution sanctioning similar payment as incentive to its employees and the implementation of resolution was to be done after the approval of State Government. 4. In this background, I have heard Shri Dhatrak, learned counsel for the petitioners - Municipal Councils, Shri Wachasunder, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Shri Patel and Shri Kothari, learned AGPs for respondent No. 2 in respective writ petitions. 5. Shri Dhatrak, learned counsel has contended that the learned Member of Industrial Court has erroneously held that Government Resolutions mentioned above are applicable to the employees of Municipal Councils. 5. Shri Dhatrak, learned counsel has contended that the learned Member of Industrial Court has erroneously held that Government Resolutions mentioned above are applicable to the employees of Municipal Councils. He has invited attention to these resolutions to contend that these resolutions are applicable only to employees of State Government and not to employees of Municipal Councils. He points out that though the Municipal Councils have passed the resolutions to implement these resolutions of State Government, the said implementation is subject to prior approval of State Government and State Government has not granted such approval. He states that Respondent No.1 did not approach the Industrial Court with grievance that the State Government has given necessary no objection to the petitioners and still the petitioners are not implementing the resolutions and not paying 15% incentive to its members. He, therefore, argues that there is non application of mind by the learned Member of Industrial Court and the impugned order is unsustainable. He further contends that as the resolutions are not ipso facto applicable to the petitioners, its non implementation cannot attract item No. 9 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act and the learned Member of Industrial Court, therefore, erred in concluding that the petitioners have indulged in unfair labour practice. 6. Shri Wachasunder, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 . Trade Union has relied upon the very same resolutions to urge that the resolutions are not applicable only to State Government employees. He contends that resolutions are applicable to various other categories also like employees of Zilla Parishads, Teaching and Non-Teaching staff of Private un-aided educational institutions and Colleges. He states that this illustration of employees covered by Government Resolution dated 6.8.2002 is only illustrative and not exhaustive. According to him, when employees of Zilla Parishads or Teaching and Non Teaching staff working in the town of Chandrapur, Mul or Ballarshah, where the members of Respondent No.1 . Trade Union are also working, are entitled to payment of such incentive, it cannot be contended that the State Government intended to deny such payment only to employees of Municipal Councils. He, therefore, states that as per the narration of various categories in above mentioned Government Resolutions, the employees of Municipal Councils must be deemed to be included in this resolution. He, therefore, states that as per the narration of various categories in above mentioned Government Resolutions, the employees of Municipal Councils must be deemed to be included in this resolution. In the alternative, he also argues that for the purpose of these resolutions, employees of Municipal Councils are entitled to be treated and recognized as Government employees and lastly he contends that if arguments of petitioners are accepted, it creates hostile discrimination between two sets of employees who are otherwise working in similar environment and it would violate Article 14 of Constitution of India and extension of State policy decision to members of Respondent No.1 . Trade Union by the Industrial Court cannot be faulted with. It is his argument that as the placement and working of employees i.e. members of Respondent No.1 . Trade Union in Naxalite area is not in dispute in any way, writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 7. The respective Assistant Government Pleaders appearing for the Director of Municipal Administration in all three matters have supported the arguments of the petitioners. They contend that narration of categories of employees to whom the benefit of payment of incentive is extended is not illustrative but it is exhaustive. They contend that employees of Municipal Council are not State Government employees and as Municipal Councils were aware of this, while passing the resolutions in favour of their employees, Municipal Councils have expressly made those resolutions subject to prior approval of State Government. They invited attention to communication dated 28.4.2005 issued by the Regional Director of Municipal Administration, to respective Chief Officers communicating to them that the Government Resolution dated 6.8.2002 is not applicable to them and it is not meant for Municipal Councils. According to them, there is no question of hostile discrimination because employees of Municipal Councils work in town only and not subjected to transfer in rural/interior areas. They urged that the incentive has been provided for and made applicable only to those employees whose services are transferable outside Municipal limits i.e. rural areas which are more prone to Naxalite attacks. In fact, they also tried to show that the area of respective Municipal Council is not recognized as relevant for the purposes of entitlement to present incentive but it is the place of work of concerned employees, which has been given importance by the State Government. 8. In fact, they also tried to show that the area of respective Municipal Council is not recognized as relevant for the purposes of entitlement to present incentive but it is the place of work of concerned employees, which has been given importance by the State Government. 8. With the assistance of learned counsel, I have perused the impugned order dated 14.12.2006. Its perusal itself reveals that the learned Member of Industrial Court has not considered all these facets of the controversy. It appears that the learned Member of Industrial Court has proceeded with premise that Government Resolutions dated 6.8.2002, 18.8.2004 and 7.12.2004 are straightway applicable to members of Respondent No.1 . Trade Union. It found that earlier in Government Resolution dated 6.8.2002, there was a condition which restricted the payment of incentive allowance to employees working outside Municipal limits but then that restriction was deleted by letter dated 5.9.2002. In view of this deletion, it recorded a finding that the employees within the Municipal limits were also eligible for payment of incentive. It has then found that by not implementing these Government Resolutions and by not paying incentive to its employees, the petitioners indulged in unfair labour practice falling under item No. 9 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act. Though it mentioned the communication dated 28.4.2005 by the office of Regional Director of Municipal Administration, to Chief Officer, Chandrapur, Exh. 28, it concluded that the Director of Municipal Administration did not take into consideration the clarification issued vide order dated 5.9.2002. It has, therefore, allowed the complaint. 9. The perusal of Government Resolution dated 6.8.2002 shows that the Scheme of paying incentive has been made applicable to Officers and employees in government service, officers and employees of Zilla Parishad, full time Teaching and Non Teaching staff in granted Educational institutions and Colleges. Earlier, the incentive was specified at fixed rate but it has been modified and the system of paying allowance at 15% of basic was introduced with minimum of Rs.200/- and maximum of Rs.1,500/- per month. It is also apparent that earlier the increased incentive was not extended to employees working in Municipal Corporation or Municipal area situated in Naxalite affected zone but then that condition was deleted. It is also apparent that earlier the increased incentive was not extended to employees working in Municipal Corporation or Municipal area situated in Naxalite affected zone but then that condition was deleted. The effect of deletion of said condition is, the employees to whom the incentive allowance was made applicable, became entitled to receive even if they were working in Municipal Corporation area or Municipal area. The modification, therefore, does not have the effect of including employees of Municipal Corporation or employees of Municipal Council in the categories of employees to whom Government Resolution is applicable. Because of this deletion, the employees of four categories mentioned in resolution dated 5.2.1999 are eligible for its receipt even if place of their service falls within the Municipal Corporation limits or Municipal limits. The inference of the learned Member of Industrial Court that because of such exercise of deleting that condition, the Scheme for payment of incentive is extended to employees of Municipal Council is erroneous and perverse. 10. The contention of Shri Wachasunder, learned counsel about interpretation of categories mentioned in Resolution dated 5.2.1999 is again liable to be rejected. The four categories mentioned are already reproduced above. It is to be noted that the Zilla Parishad is also a local authority like Municipal Council and still its officers and employees have been specifically mentioned by the State Government. The contention of learned AGPs that it is the place of discharge of duty which has been given paramount importance in said policy by the State government may also be relevant while considering whether these four categories are illustrative or exhaustive in nature. But then the basic question is whether while attempting to find out indulgence in unfair labour practice under item No. 9 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act, the learned Member of Industrial Court can undertake such an exercise. The argument of Shri Wachasunder, learned counsel that if the Municipal employees like members of Respondent No.1 are held as excluded from said Scheme because they are not covered by four categories mentioned above and enumeration of categories is held to be exhaustive, it results in hostile discrimination and violates Article 14 of Constitution of India also could not have been gone into by the Industrial Court while trying to find out whether there is any unfair labour practice under item 9 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act. The questions, therefore, need to be left open for consideration before appropriate forum in appropriate challenge. In present matter, I am not inclined to hold that while considering the challenge in item No. 9 of Schedule IV, the Industrial Court could have through interpretative process concluded that employees of Municipal Councils are also covered in Government Resolution dated 5.2.1999. The four categories are expressly specified and as such it is difficult to hold that categories not mentioned therein are also included in or are meant to be covered by said resolution. In any case Municipal employees who are not employees of State Government cannot be subjected to said policy decisions via itam 9 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act. 11. Insofar as Municipal Councils are concerned, their working and administration is controlled by State Government as also by the Regional Director of Municipal Administration within four corners of Maharashtra Nagar Panchayat and Industrial Townships Act, 1965. Respondent No.2 . Director of Municipal Administration has expressly communicated to the petitioners on 28.4.2005 that the said Scheme and resolution is not meant for employees working with Municipal Councils. It is apparent that Municipal Councils cannot violate such direction issued by the Regional Director of Municipal Administration and State Government. The learned Member of Industrial Court has not given any reasons as to why such direction issued by Respondent No.2 is illegal and constitutes unfair labour practice under item No. 9 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act. It is also clear that the indulgence by Respondent No. 2 in such unfair labour practice could not have been considered by the learned Member of Industrial Court in present facts, as there is no employer . employee relationship between respondent no.2 and employees of petitioners. 12. Though there are resolutions passed by Municipal Councils to extend the Scheme of payment of incentive to its employees, the Municipal Councils have rightly observed that said resolution can not be extended until after approval of State Government. Such a rider became essential because above mentioned Government Resolution was not ipso facto applicable to Municipal Council. The respondent no.1 has not pointed out either to Industrial Court or to this Court that such an approval has been given by the State Government at any point after 28.4.2005. Such a rider became essential because above mentioned Government Resolution was not ipso facto applicable to Municipal Council. The respondent no.1 has not pointed out either to Industrial Court or to this Court that such an approval has been given by the State Government at any point after 28.4.2005. It is, therefore, clear that as on date, there is no material on record to show that benefits of Government Resolution dated 6.8.2002 or 18.8.2004 or 7.12.2004 are extended to the members of Respondent No. 1 . Trade Union. In fact perusal of later two Government Resolutions only reveal that State Government has declared certain areas or villages as Naxal infested areas for the purposes of implementation of said scheme of payment of incentives. It is not in dispute that Municipal areas of petitioners Municipal Councils are covered by these resolutions. However, as already observed above, government resolutions thereby do not become applicable to the employees working with Municipal Council and, therefore, they are not entitled to claim 15% incentive. 13. In the circumstances, I find that the learned Member of Industrial Court has not properly considered the facts presented to it by the parties. The impugned common order dated 14.12.2006 is unsustainable and same is accordingly quashed and set aside. Complaint (ULPA) No. 65 of 2005 filed by Respondent No.1 is, therefore, dismissed. However, it is made clear that Respondent No.1 or its members are free to raise appropriate challenge before appropriate forum to seek application or extension of this policy decision to them in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court under Articles 226 of 227 of Constitution of India in the matter has only examined the correctness or otherwise of jurisdiction exercised by the learned Member of Industrial Court under item No. 9 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act. Thus, all writ petitions are allowed. Rule accordingly, However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.