Judgment :- 1. Complainant, who is respondent no. 1 in this petition, was first appointed as Clerk in Time Scale on 01.03.1973. On 02.07.1993, he was promoted on temporary basis as officiating Junior Assistant. On 19.03.1978, he appeared for departmental examination for the promotion to the post of Jr. Assistant. On 17.04.1978 he passed that examination and became qualified for the post of Junior Assistant on regular basis. After that on 19.04.1978, he was appointed as Junior Assistant on probation for a period of one year. On satisfactory completion of the probation, he was confirmed as Junior Assistant on 19.04.1979. As per the 1981 Settlement, between the petitioner-MSRTC and its employees' Union, the complainant, on completion of 12 years continuous service as Junior Assistant, was given higher grade with effect from 19.04.1990. According to the complainant, he was entitled to higher grade with effect from 02.07.1985 when he had completed 12 years continuous service on the post of Junior Assistant, beginning with 02.07.1973 when he was first appointed on that post as officiating Jr. Assistant. As this claim was not acceptable to the Management, he filed complaint ULP No. 40/1994 (New No. 260/1999) and contended that the petitioner-employer had failed to implement the Settlement properly and had wrongly refused the benefits of higher grade from 1985 and thus the petitioner had indulged in unfair labour practice in view of Item 9 Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act, 1971. He sought direction to the petitioner to desist from unfair labour practice and for further directions that he be given the benefit of higher grade with effect from 02.07.1985. 2. The petitioner/employer resisted the complaint mainly on the ground that period of service rendered by the complainant as Junior Assistant on temporary or officiating basis cannot be counted and the period of 12 years has to be counted only from the date when he was duly qualified and was appointed on the post of Junior Assistant on regular basis. It was contended that as he was appointed on the post of Junior Assistant on regular basis with effect from 19.04.1978, only on completion of 12 years from that date, he has been given benefit of higher grade with effect from 19.04.1990 and thus the petitioner had not indulged in any unfair labour practice. 3. It was contended that as he was appointed on the post of Junior Assistant on regular basis with effect from 19.04.1978, only on completion of 12 years from that date, he has been given benefit of higher grade with effect from 19.04.1990 and thus the petitioner had not indulged in any unfair labour practice. 3. After hearing the parties and after interpretation of clause 5 of the 1981 Settlement, the Industrial Court held that the petitioner-employer had indulged in unfair labour practice and that the complainant was entitled to benefit of higher grade on completion of 12 years from the date of his first appointment on 02.07.1973 as Junior Assistant and the Industrial Court directed the petitioner to pay wages of the higher grade with effect from 02.07.1985 onwards. That order has been challenged in the present petition. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. There is no dispute about the different dates, which are referred to above. Also there is no dispute that there was settlement between the petitioner and Union of its employees' in 1981. Relevant portion of clause 5 of the 1981 Settlement reads as follows:- “5. Gradation: (A) Except those workmen who are in the grades 390-15-450-20-530-25-605-30-950 and 410-20-530-25-705-30-945, all other workmen who complete 12 years continuous and satisfactory service in their existing grade, shall be granted the scale of immediate next higher promotion post. Where there is no immediate next higher promotion post for a particular category, the higher scale for such a category of workmen shall be as shown in annexure 5'. Note: (1) .Satisfactory Service. for the purpose of this clause will mean the services of a workman who has not been awarded any one or more of the following punishments: (a) ......” 5. There is no dispute that this clause of the 1981 Settlement is applicable to the complainant. On the bare reading of this clause, it appears that a workman, who completes 12 years continuous and satisfactory service in his existing grade, shall be granted the scale of immediate next higher promotional post and where there is no immediate next higher promotion post for a particular category, higher scale for such category of workman shall be as indicated in annexure to the said service. In the present case, admittedly, there was a higher promotional post in the form of Senior Assistant. In the present case, admittedly, there was a higher promotional post in the form of Senior Assistant. Therefore, what is required for grant of the scale of higher promotional post is completion of 12 years continuous and satisfactory service. There is nothing to show that the period of 12 years should be completed after the employee has been confirmed on the particular post on regular basis. There is nothing to show that the period of service rendered by an employee on the existing grade on temporary or officiating basis, shall be excluded for the purpose of counting the 12 years service. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that circular dated 29.12.1994 was not brought to the notice of the Industrial Court and that has not been considered before coming to the conclusion. That Circular reveals that after the 1981 Settlement, Circular no. 19 dated 22.08.1983 was issued. Thereafter, another circular no. 24 of 17.09.1992 was issued in respect of implementation of the scheme of granting benefit of the pay scale of the promotional. There were certain demands from the employees and taking into consideration those demands, the petitioner had issued fresh circular no. 33/94 dated 29.12.1994. In fact, opening para of the circular reveals that in view of the demands made by the employees' Union, certain conditions were being relaxed for the implementation of the scheme. Clause (a) of the circular is relevant. It may be translated as follows:- “While sanctioning the grade of the promotional post to the employee, continuous and satisfactory service as temporary employee shall be counted for the purpose of calculation of period of 12 years. However, while granting that benefit, the said employee should be actually working on the regular time scale post and he should have been confirmed on that post. This benefit shall be available with effect from 01.04.1992 onwards.” 7. In fact, by this circular, it was clarified that the period of service rendered as temporary employee or on officiating basis was also to be counted for the purpose of calculation of 12 years for grant of benefit of higher pay scale possibly because there was some doubt about the interpretation of clause 5. In fact, by this circular, it was clarified that the period of service rendered as temporary employee or on officiating basis was also to be counted for the purpose of calculation of 12 years for grant of benefit of higher pay scale possibly because there was some doubt about the interpretation of clause 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that this benefit is available only after 01.04.1992 and, therefore, the services rendered on temporary or officiating basis could not be counted prior to 1992 and this aspect has not been considered by the Industrial Court. On careful perusal of the impugned order and circular of 1994, I do not see any substance in the contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner had given benefit to the complainant in the year 1990, while he had filed complaint claiming the benefits from 1985. The subsequent circular could not be made applicable to the said litigation. In fact, this circular of 1994 also clarify that the period of services rendered on temporary or officiating basis shall be counted, provided on that date the employee should be holding regular time scale post and he should have been confirmed on that post. By the 1981 Settlement, it was not specified that the period of services rendered on temporary or officiating basis should not be counted. Clause 5 of that settlement only provided that the employee should have completed 12 years continuous and satisfactory service in the existing grade and naturally the 12 years continuous satisfactory service would include the services rendered on temporary on officiating basis. 8. It appears that, the interpretation of clause 5 was also subject matter of Writ Petition No. 3031/1990; Nana s/o Sitaramji Kalbande ..vs.. Member Industrial Court, Nagpur and others decided on 24.07.1992. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 in that petition were present petitioner-MSRTC. The learned Single Judge in para 7 of the said judgment had observed as follows:- “7. .....A bare reading of the clause makes it clear that benefit is being extended to the workmen since promotional chances are less and such workmen must at least get the benefit of the next higher grade though not the post. With this end in view, the above said clause has been incorporated. It suggests that a workman who completes 12 years continuous and satisfactory service in the existing grade is entitled to claim the benefit. With this end in view, the above said clause has been incorporated. It suggests that a workman who completes 12 years continuous and satisfactory service in the existing grade is entitled to claim the benefit. Only two conditions are to be fulfilled before entitlement under the clause becomes due. Firstly, the workmen must be working in a particular grade for a period of 12 years and secondly, the service rendered must be satisfactory in terms of the note given below the said clause. The working in a particular grade is the criteria and not the capacity in which the workmen works, it may be either in officiating capacity or on regular basis. It is not in dispute that the petitioner worked as a senior clerk in the grade applicable to this cadre initially as an officiating senior clerk and later on as a senior clerk in regular capacity. It is also not in dispute that the service rendered by the petitioner was quite satisfactory. Therefore, both the conditions are complied with. The petitioner was hence entitled to the benefit under clause 5 of the settlement and depriving him of this benefit is a clear breach of settlement. The respondents have thereby indulged in unfair labour practice mentioned in item No. 9 of schedule IV of the Act.” 9. In the present case, there is no dispute that the complainant-respondent no.1 was continuously working as Junior Assistant with effect from 02.07.1973 and his performance was satisfactory. In view of language of clause 5 of the 1981 Settlement, as interpreted above, the period of service rendered on temporary basis or on officiating basis will have to be counted. Therefore, I find no fault with the finding of the Industrial Court as well as the directions given by the Industrial Court. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.