Karnataka High Court
The Managing Director vs Basavaraj Ningappa Hudli on 11 October, 2013
Author: Ashok B. Hinchigeri
Bench: Ashok B. Hinchigeri
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI
WRIT PETITION NO.62961/2012 (L-TER)
C/w. WRIT PETITION NO.63360/2012
IN W.P.No.62961/2012:
BETWEEN:
1. The Managing Director,
Karnataka Urban Water Supply and
Drainage Board, Bannergatta Road,
Bangalore.
2. The Chief Engineer,
Karnataka Urban Water Supply and
Drainage Board, North Circle,
Dharwad.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Karnataka Urban Water Supply and
Drainage Board, Belgaum Division,
Sadashivnagar, Belgaum.
4. The Assistant Executive Engineer,
Karnataka Urban Water Supply and
Drainage Board, Sub Division No.3,
Hidkal Dam, Tq.: Hukkeri,
District Belgaum.
... Petitioners
(By Sri N.M. Hansi, Advocate)
-2-
AND:
1. Basavaraj Ningappa Hudli,
Age 42 years, Occ.: Business,
The Proprietor,
M/s.Nandi Electricals,
III Floor, Bilagi Plaza,
Lingaraj College Road,
Belgaum.
2. Kadappa S/o.Satteppa Dappaduli,
Age major, Occ.: Konnur,
Tq.: Gokak, Dist.: Belgaum
and 18 others.
... Respondents
(By Sri M.V. Chavan, Sri R.M. Chavan and Smt.Kirti B. Joshi,
Advocates for C/respondent No.2.
Sri Ravi V. Hosamani, Advocate for Respondent No.1)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the order passed at
Annexure-D in application No.84/2005, dated 21/12/2011
passed by the Additional Labour Court, Hubli insofar as
directing the petitioners and respondent No.1 to pay the dues
of respondent No.2 and other workmen.
IN W.P.NO.63360/2012:
BETWEEN:
Basavaraj Ningappa Hudali,
Age 42 years, Occ.: Business,
The Proprietor,
M/s.Nandi Electricals,
III Floor, Bilagi Plaza,
-3-
Lingaraj College Road,
Belgaum.
... Petitioner
(By Sri Ravi V. Hosamani, advocate)
AND:
1. Karnataka Urban Water Supply and
Drainage Board, Bannergatta Road,
Bangalore, by its Managing Director.
2. The Chief Engineer,
Karnataka Urban Water Supply and
Drainage Board, North Circle, Dharwad.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Karnataka Urban Water Supply and
Drainage Board, Belgaum Division,
Sadashivnagar, Belgaum.
4. The Assistant Executive Engineer,
Karnataka Urban Water Supply and
Drainage Board, Sub Division No.3,
Hidkal Dam, Tq.: Hukkeri,
District Belgaum.
5. Kadappa S/o.Satteppa Dappaduli,
Age major, Occ.: Konnur,
Tq.: Gokak, Dist.: Belgaum
... Respondents
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the award dated
21/12/2011 passed by the Additional Labour Court, Hubli in
application No.84/2005 produced herewith as Annexure-C.
These petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing in
B-Group, this day, the Court made the following:
-4-
ORDER
The W.P.No.62961/2012 is filed by the Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board ('KUWSDB' for short) and its three Officers and the W.P.No.63360/2012 is filed by the Contractor. In both the petitions, the challenge is raised to the order, dated 21.12.2011 passed by the Additional Labour Court, Hubli in Application No.84/2005, directing the petitioners jointly and severally to pay the differential wages to the workmen in question calculating their wages at Rs.5,000/- per month for the operators and Rs.6,000/- for the diploma-holders.
2. Sri N.M.Hansi, the learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.62961/2012 submits that the application stated to have been filed by the second respondent on behalf of 18 other co-workmen ought to have been dismissed by the Additional Labour Court in limine. He brings to my notice, the application form K-3 prescribed by the Industrial Disputes (Karnataka) Rules, 1957 ('the said Rules' for short) for the recovery of the money due from the -5- employer under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the said Act' for short). The said form requires that the names of all the applicants be shown in the cause title of the application. If there are two or more applicants, only one of them cannot be content by giving his particulars and not mentioning the names of the other applicants. In the cause- title shown of the application, the petitioners' description is shown as follows:
"Mr.Kadappa S/o Satappa Dappaduli and other 18 workmen, Age: Major, Occ: Nil, R/o At & Post: Konnur, Tq: Gokak, Dist: Belgaum."
3. It is Sri Hansi's submission that a joint or composite application can be filed, but the names of all the applicants are required to be shown in the cause title of the application. He submits that only a trade union or registered association can file a petition on behalf of all its members without furnishing the names of its members.
4. He submits that the proceedings under Section 33-C(2) of the said Act are virtually in the nature of execution -6- proceedings. The disputed amounts cannot be claimed invoking Section 33-C(2) of the said Act.
5. He submits that the wages are placed in the III Schedule to the said Act. Therefore, any dispute regarding the wage has to be raised only by invoking Section 10 of the said Act. The appropriate Government may refer the matter to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. But the dispute regarding the wage, under no circumstance, can be raised by presenting an application to the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the said Act.
6. To advance the submission that the Labour Court cannot determine the dispute of entitlement or the basis of claim, in the absence of prior adjudication, under Section 33- C(2), he relies on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI v. GANESH RAZAK AND ANOTHER reported in 1995 I L.L.J. 395. He read out paragraph No.8 of the said decision, which is extracted hereinbelow:
-7-
"8. Reference may be made first to the Constitution Bench decision in The Central Bank of India Ltd. v. P.S.Rajagopalan etc., (1963-II-LLJ-89)(SC), on which Shri Rao placed heavy reliance. That was a case in which the question of maintainability of proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the Act was considered in a claim made by the workmen on the basis of the Sastry Award. The employer disputed the claim of the workmen on several grounds including the applicability of Section 33C(2) of the Act. It was urged that since the applications involved a question of interpretation of the Sastry Award, they were outside the purview of Section 33C(2) because interpretation of awards or settlements has been expressly provided for by Section 36A. This objection was rejected. This Court pointed out the difference in the scope of Section 36A and Section 33C(2) indicating that the distinction lies in the fact that Section 36A is not concerned with the implementation or execution of the award whereas that is the sole purpose of Section 33C(2); and whereas Section 33C(2) deals with cases of implementation of individual rights of workmen falling under its provisions, Section 36A deals merely with a question of interpretation of the award where a dispute arises in that behalf between the workmen and the employer and the appropriate Government is satisfied that the dispute deserves to be resolved by reference under Section 36A. In this context, -8- this Court also indicated that the power of the Labour Court in a proceeding under Section 33C(2) being akin to that of the Executing Court, the Labour Court is competent to interpret the award or settlement on which a workman bases his claim under Section 33C(2), like the power of the Executing Court to interpret the decree for the purpose of execution."
7. The learned counsel submits that there is no employer - employee relationship between the KUWSDB and the second respondent and 18 others. This specific stand taken by the KUWSDB, in its objection statement before the Additional Labour Court, has just been overlooked. The learned counsel has also relied on the Apex Court's judgment in the case of TARA AND OTHERS v. DIRECTOR, SOCIAL WELFARE AND OTHERS reported in 1998 I L.L.J. 632 in support of his contention that unless there was a prior adjudication of the status and nature of employment of the appellants, the question of moving an application under Section 33-C(2) for computation of wages would not arise. -9-
8. He has also relied on this Court's decision in the case of VXL INSTRUMENTS LIMITED, BANGALORE v. T.R. CHANDRASHEKAR reported in 2012 I CLR 285. It is held therein that a claim under Section 33-C(2) of the said Act can be made only after the Tribunal has adjudicated the same or the same is covered by the settlement between the parties. In the instant case, the petitioner had even challenged the status of the claimants as workmen of KUWSDB, which issue cannot be decided by the Labour Court. In the proceedings under Section 33-C(2) of the said Act, the Labour Court can only calculate the amount of money due to be paid by the employer to the workmen and which is capable of being computed.
9. Sri Ravi V.Hosamani, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.63360/2012 urges the submissions akin to those made by Sri Hansi. In addition thereto, Sri Hosamani submits that the petitioning Contractor received only the bid amount. It is not that the petitioner-Contractor received
- 10 -
Rs.6,000/- or Rs.5,000/- for every worker towards his monthly wages. He submits that it is the case of the workmen that their signatures were taken on blank papers; it is the case of the petitioning Contractor that the wage register is reflective of the wages actually received by the workmen. He submits that the contracting agreement between the Contractor and the workmen specifies the wages also. It is Rs.6,000/- per month in respect of diploma holders and Rs.5,000/- in respect of non-diploma holders. The workmen however have falsely claimed that they were being paid only Rs.1,500/- to Rs.2,700/-.
10. Sri Hosamani read out the relevant portions from the cross-examination part of the fifth respondent workman's deposition:
"The particulars of dues of myself and others are not known to me............We have not mentioned the alleged dues per month wise and also per annum. We had no obstacle to furnish these particulars in our application.....
- 11 -
11. The further cross-examination, which was brought to my notice by Sri Hosamani reads as follows:
" ........ We have not mentioned in our application regarding date of joining duty and when we left the service. There was no obstacle for us to mention the same in the application. We have not mentioned in our application as to how we are entitled to get Rs.27,15,610/-. The witness volunteers that we have produced the separate documents in this regard. I again say that we have not produced any documents in this regard ..............
..........We have not mentioned in our application that the respondents used to take signatures on blank wage registers ............
12. To show that the exception was taken to the non- mentioning of the names of 18 other workmen, he read out the following part of the cross-examination.
"18 employees have given power of attorney in my favour to give evidence on their behalf also. I have produced attested power of attorney in this case. It is not mentioned in Ex.A.15 that 18 other applicants have authorized me to give evidence on behalf of them in App No.84/2005. The names of 18 other persons are not mentioned in the cause title of application No.84/2005.
- 12 -
There was no obstacle for impleading 18 persons as parties in these applications and to come to Court ..........."
13. Sri Hosamani submits that there is no discussion, no reasoning in the impugned order. The oral and documentary evidence placed on the record of the Labour Court has not been considered at all.
14. Sri M.V.Chavan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-workmen submits that Sections 33-C(5) of the said Act provides for the filing of the single application for the recovery of amounts on behalf of the similarly placed workmen. Therefore, the application filed by one workman on behalf of himself and on behalf of the co-workmen is maintainable. He submits that the non-mentioning of 18 names in the cause-title of the application cannot be held against the workmen because all 19 workmen have signed the application. He submits that the Legislature has consciously used the word 'application' and not the 'petition'. Filing of the application knows no technicalities. There is no requirement
- 13 -
that the application must contain the names of all the workmen.
15. Sri Chavan submits that the strict rules of technicality have no application for the proceedings for putting the industrial law into motion. As Industrial Dispute Act is a bread and butter statute and social welfare legislation, the broader interpretation has to be put on its various provisions. In support of his submission, he relies on the Apex Court's judgment in the case of M/S.ESSEN DEINKI vs. RAJIV KUMAR reported in (2002) 8 SCC 400.
16. The learned counsel submits that for making an order for the payment of short-fall in the agreed wages, no adjudication is required. He submits that the facts are not in dispute at all; that the workmen in question have worked for KUWSDB is not in dispute; that they have come through the Contractor to work for KUWSDB is not in dispute; that the Contractor has agreed to give Rs.6,000/- to diploma holders and Rs.5,000/- to the non-diploma holders is not in dispute.
- 14 -
These being the undisputed facts, the shortfall in the payment of the wages at the agreed rate has to be made good by the Contractor. If the Contractor fails to make the payment of wages, then it becomes the burden of the principal employer to pay the amount to the contract labourers and thereafter recover it from the Contractor. To ensure the transparency in the payment of wages to the contract labourers, Section 21 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, provides for the following:
"21. Responsibility for payment of wages.- (1) A contractor shall be responsible for payment of wages to each worker employed by him as contract labour and such wages shall be paid before the expiry of such period as may be prescribed.
(2) Every principal employer shall nominate a representative duly authorized by him to be present at the time of disbursement of wages by the contractor and it shall be the duty of such representative to certify the amounts paid as wages in such manner as may be prescribed.
- 15 -
(3) It shall be the duty of the contractor to ensure the disbursement of wages in the presence of the authorized representative of the principal employer. (4) In case the contractor fails to make payment of wages within the prescribed period or makes short payment, then the principal employer shall be liable to make payment of wages in full or the unpaid balance due, as the case may be, to the contract labour employed by the contractor and recover the amount so paid from the contractor either by deduction from any amount payable to the contractor under any contract or as a debt payable by the contractor."
17. He also read out Rules 72 and 73 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) (Karnataka) Rules, 1974, which are extracted hereinbelow:
"72. Responsibility of principal employer and contractor regarding payment wages.- The principal employer shall ensure the presence of his authorised representative at the place and time of disbursement of wages by the contractor to workmen and it shall be the duty of the contractor to ensure the disbursement of wages in the presence of such authorised representative.
- 16 -
73. Recording of Certificate regarding payment of wages.- The authorised representative of the principal employer shall record under his signature a certificate at the end of the entries in the Register of Wages or the ([Register of Wages-cum-Muster Roll], as the case may be, in the following form:-
"Certified that the amount shown in column No. ........................ has been paid to the workmen concerned in my presence on .............................. at ........................ ."
18. In support of his submissions, he read out the head- note from the reported decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of HINDUSTAN STEELWORKS CONSTRUCTION vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR AND OTHERS reported in 1996 LLR 865. It is extracted hereinbelow:
"Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 - Sections 7, 12, 21, 25(4) and 35 and Chapter V read with Andhra Pradesh Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Rules, 1971, Rule 25V(a) - Appellant carrying on work of various types of constructions engaged respondent No.4 as contractor registered under Section 7 of the Act to provide security guards, shift incharge
- 17 -
and security sergeants on specified amount for each such person - the Respondent No.4 retained certain amount while paying wages to each person - Authority under the Act on inspection found difference between the wages between the watch and ward staff of the appellant and that of the respondent No.4 - Invoked remedial measures under Rule V(a) of State Rules - Labour Commissioner ordered that the contractor's workers were performing similar work - As being performed by the workers engaged by the appellant - Challenged - Learned Single Judge upheld the order in writ petition - Appeal - Division Bench - While upholding the judgment held the agreement ultra vires - Ordered not only to the payment of amount retained by the respondent but directed to make the payment the wages which were being paid to security staff of appellant (Principal employer) - Filed appeal to Supreme Court - Explained obligations of contractor under Rule 25 of State Rules to pay wages to workers not lower than those as being paid by the principal employer - Allowed the appeal conditionally since workers were not party - the contractor shall pay the wages to the workers of the contractor as contracted for and the lesser wages as paid to workers - Appellant if required to pay the difference - can recover from the contractor.
Held: Significantly, in the present proceedings the workers are not a party at all. It is the contractor who
- 18 -
sought to quash a finding given by the Commissioner of Labour under the proviso to Rule 25(v)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Rules, 1971. In the appeal before the Supreme Court also the contract workers employed by the fourth respondent are not a party. The dispute is between the contractor and the principal employer. We are, therefore, not called upon to pronounce on the rights of the contract labour employed by the fourth respondent to recover these amounts. The appellant, however, who is the principal employer, is not liable to pay this additional amount under Section 21(4). The appellant would however, be liable under Section 21(4) to pay to the workers any difference between the wages contracted for under its agreement with the fourth respondent contractor and the lesser wages actually paid by the contractor to contract labour, and recover the same from the contractor."
19. For canvassing the proposition that this Court's inference in the Labour Forums' fact finding on the question of fact is not warranted, he relies on M/S.ESSEN DEINKI (supra). He submits that unless there is an apparent illegality or perversity, this Court's interference in exercising
- 19 -
the power conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not warranted.
20. He submits that the Contractor has not produced all the relevant registers for the relevant years. That is why, the Labour Court is justified in drawing the necessary adverse interference against the Contractor and KUWSDB. He submits that Ex.A3, clearly indicates that the Contractor was receiving Rs.6,000/- and Rs.5,000/- from the principal employer for every workman towards his monthly wages in respect of diploma holders and non-diploma holders respectively.
21. The following questions fall for my consideration:
i) What is the effect of not mentioning the names of all the applicants in the cause-title of the application?
ii) Whether the dispute regarding the wage can be raised in the proceedings under Section 33-C(2) of the said Act?
iii) Whether under Section 33-C(2) of the said Act, the Additional Labour Court is competent to award proper wages?
- 20 -
iv) Whether the payment of wages can be ordered when the issue of status of employment of the workman itself has not attained the finality? IN RE-QUESTION NO.1:-
22. To answer the first question, it is necessary to refer to the provisions contained in Section 33-C(5) of the said Act. They read as follows:
"33-C. Recovery of money due from an
employer.-
(5) Where workmen employed under the same employer are entitled to receive from him any money or any benefit capable of being computed in terms of money, then, subject to such rules as may be made in this behalf, a single application for the recovery of the amount due may be made on behalf of or in respect of any number of such workmen."
23. The perusal of the above-extracted provisions reveals that a single application for the recovery of amounts can be made on behalf of or in respect of any number of the workmen. But the making of a single application on behalf of the other workmen is subject to the rules, which may be made in that behalf. That is the making of the application on
- 21 -
behalf of a number of workmen is dependant on and is being governed by the rules being framed.
24. The Karnataka State has framed the Industrial Disputes (Karnataka) Rules, 1957. Rule 63(2) of the said Rules read as follows:
"63. Application for recovery of dues.- - (2) Where any workman or a group of workmen is entitled to receive from the employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money, the workman or the group of workmen, as the case may be, may apply to the specified Labour Court in form K-3 for the determination of the amount due or, as the case may be, the amount at which such benefit should be computed."
25. Form K-3 as prescribed by Rule 63(2) of the said Rules is as follows:
FORM K-3 [See Rule 63(2)] Application under Sub-section (2) of Section 33-C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Before the State Government Labour Court at ...... between
- 22 -
(1) Name of the applicant(s)
(2) Name of the employer
The petitioner, ......... a workman of/ The
petitioners under signed, workmen of M/s. .............. of ....................... is/are entitled to receive from the said M/s. ..................... the money/benefits mentioned in the Statement hereto annexed.
It is prayed that the Court be pleased to determine the amount/amounts due to the petitioner(s).
Signature or thumb impression(s) of the applicant(s)
1.
2.
3.
4.
Station Date ANNEXURE (herein set out the details of the money due or the benefits accrued together with the case for their admissibility.)] (Emphasis supplied)
26. The perusal of the Rule and the contents of the prescribed form extracted hereinabove reveals that a joint
- 23 -
application is maintainable. That is if there are two or more applicants, it is open to them to file a joint application. But the names of all the applicants have to be shown in the cause-title of the application. The first applicant cannot show only his name and address and then state '18 other workmen.' The names and addresses of the 18 other workmen are required to be stated in the cause-title of the application. In the instant case, the description of the applicants in the cause-title of the application reads as follows:
Mr.Kadappa S/o.Satappa Dappaduli and other 18 workmen Age major, Occ.: Nil, R/o.: At Post Konnur, Tq.: Gokak, District Belgaum.
27. Even when he has signed for himself and for 18 other workmen in his capacity as their power of attorney holder, the names and addresses of the other 18 workmen ought to have been furnished in the cause-title of the application, more so when the first applicant is also a workman and not a trade union.
- 24 -
28. When the application itself was imperfect or defective, it ought to have been returned by the Additional Labour Court. Even assuming that the application contained a curable defect, it ought to have been cured as soon as the petitioners pointed it out. As the applicant did not do the same and as the Additional Labour Court overlooked that aspect of the matter, the resultant position would be that the Section 33-C(2) applications on behalf of 18 workmen had rendered themselves invalid for the purpose of being disposed off on merits.
IN RE-QUESTION NO.2 and 3
29. To avoid the overlapping, these two questions are being taken up together for consideration. The Apex Court in the case of Tara and others (supra) has taken the considered view that unless there was a prior adjudication of the status and nature of the employment of the applicants, the question of moving an application under Section 33-C(2) for the computation of the wages would not arise. In the case
- 25 -
of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that the Labour Court cannot determine the dispute of entitlement or the basis of the claim in the absence of the prior adjudication of the entitlement or the recognition of the same by the employer.
30. The Labour Court cannot decide the question of whether any workman is entitled to receive any money or any benefit. If a workman claims that he is entitled to certain wages, as are being paid to the regular employees in an establishment, such a situation is clearly outside the scope of Section 33-C(2) of the said Act. The Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) should not trespass upon the powers of the Tribunal and arrogate to itself the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to decide upon the disputed claims. No doubt, in Section 33- C(2) proceedings, a mere denial of the right of the workman by the employer would not take away the jurisdiction of the Labour Court, but where the basis and foundation of the claim is seriously contested and a determination of that basic
- 26 -
fact of that case involves an elaborate process, the Labour Court cannot proceed to decide the matter by treating the same as incidental to the computation of the benefit. The Labour Court can merely compute the money value of a benefit due to him under Section 33-C(2) of the said Act; but it cannot entrench upon the adjudicatory functions.
31. In the case of EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, JEYPORE ELECTRICAL DIVISION v. PO, LC, reported in (1999) 2 LLJ 337 ORISSA, the Division Bench of Orissa High Court has held that under the guise of a decision to an existing right, the Labour Court cannot arrogate to itself the functions of adjudication of matters covered under Section 10(1) of the said Act. The claim for fixation of the wages requires the determination in a regular adjudication.
32. The determination and investigation of the workman's right to relief and the corresponding obligation of the employer, are not matters incidental to or intimately and integrally connected with the computation of the benefit
- 27 -
claimed by the workman. The adjudicatory process, which gives rise to an industrial dispute should be left for adjudication under Section 10(1) and shall not be decided in the proceedings under Section 33-C(2). The proceedings under Section 33-C(2) are virtually in the nature of the execution proceedings for enforcing the existing rights - the accrued, crystalized rights. Under 33-C(2) proceedings, a party cannot be permitted to embark on a fishing or roving enquiry.
33. The benefit sought to be recovered under Section 33-C(2) must necessarily be a pre-existing benefit or the benefit flowing from a pre-existing right. It is necessary to bear in mind the vital difference between a pre-existing right or benefit on one hand and a right or benefit, which is considered just and fair on the other hand. The former falls within the jurisdiction of Section 33-C(2), while the latter does not.
- 28 -
34. Where a case involves an investigation for determining the applicant's right to relief and correspondingly the employer's liability, such an investigation is impermissible in an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. The issue of whether the workman's signature is obtained on the blank register cannot be unraveled in the proceedings under Section 33-C(2). The claim that the workman was being paid the wages less than what was shown in the wage registers cannot be accepted on his ipse dixit. As admitted by the fifth respondent workman, the month-wise wage dues are not furnished. He has further deposed that even the dates of joining the duty and of leaving the service are not mentioned in the application.
35. On a parity of reasoning, by judicial legislation, the right to make an application under Section 33-C(2) for the purpose of getting proper wages can not be introduced on the ground of fairness and justice.
- 29 -
36. The Additional Labour Court appears to have proceeded on a wrong premise that it has the jurisdiction to give the direction for the payment of proper wages. In para-16 of its award, it has observed "now it is crystal clear that the respondent No.1 has not paid the proper wages and has manipulated the records."
37. Even assuming that the petitioners have committed the breach of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and not disbursed the requisite wages, the remedy lies elsewhere. If the petitioners have not maintained the proper register or if KUWSDB has not been verifying the registers, they can be proceeded against; penalty and action can be imposed on them. But the same cannot be a foundation for holding that the respondent-workmen are entitled to receive the wages at the rate of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.6,000/-. The Additional Labout Court's finding that the petitioners have been paying Rs.6,000/- to the diploma- holders and Rs.5,000/- to the operators throughout the State
- 30 -
of Karnataka and that therefore the petitioners are entitled to pay the same amounts to the applicant workmen is absolutely without jurisdiction. Because the claim for higher wages can be determined by an adjudicator on a reference under Section 10 of the said Act.
IN RE-QUESTION NO.4:
38. The Additional Labour Court's award in KID Nos.20/2005 to 25/2005 and 27/2005 to 38/2005, directing the reinstatement of the respondent-workmen and the payment of the back wages itself is quashed in W.P.Nos.62918/2012 and 64864-64876/2012 c/w W.P.Nos.63507/2012 and 64220-64232/2012. When the issue of status of employment of the workmen itself has not attained the finality, the question of awarding the wages at this stage would be premature. As held by this Court in the case of VXL Instruments Limited (supra), the benefit which is sought to be computed must arise in the course of and in relationship between the industrial workmen and his employer.
- 31 -
39. Thus answering all the four issues, I allow these petitions by quashing the impugned order. However, the liberty is reserved to the respondent-workmen to raise the industrial dispute invoking Section 10(1)(d) of the said Act, if they are so advised. No order as to costs.
SD/-
JUDGE Vnp*