Karnataka High Court
L Gangadharaiah vs The Management Of Mysore Tobacco Co Ltd on 26 August, 2009
Author: H.G.Ramesh
Bench: H.G.Ramesh
W.P.NO.22993/2005
_ 1 -
IN THE men COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2909:'
BEFORE Q 'V 1'
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTSCE %
W.P. No.22993/2065 AI [j A J
BETWEEN:
1
L GANGADHARAIAH
S/O NINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55YE -
R/AT NO 1 14, 2ND CROSS, 3RD MAIN ROAD
PATTEGARAPALYA ' ' * - .
BANGALORE-79' H
SUBASHCHPJ\ID'RAGOGI ::
S/O SOMM.A'--pA1=1;A_c3OSx _ A
AGED ABi')UTf61
R/AT NO 1*7V5;'---32_ND CROSS, D BLOCK
J P NAGA:--1_b;e1YSO;SE--8~.» *
K A PALA '* _ '
S/O ADAPPA -
AGED 56 TEARS'
R /AT KA'ITEMALA;LAVAI51
HENSUR TALUK, MYSORE DEST
' .:§zAMAL;I~I_GE._GOVVDA
SID MNGE AVGOWDA
. 'AGED A:301.IT.S4 YEARS
' .R'/AT Hh\TDL»UGODU VILLAGE
DODDAHETJJUR POST
HUNSUR TALUK, MYSORE DEST
EB HONNE GOWDA
._S/'O BOMME GOWDA
. AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT KIRASODLU, THONDLU POST
VIA K R NAGAR, HUNSUR TALUK
MY SORE DEST
W.P.N0.22993/2005
- 2 _
6 H S BASAVARAJAPPACHARYA
S/0 SOMACHARYA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
HIRIKY'I'HANAHALLI--571 105
HUNSUR TALUK, MYSORE3 DIST
7 NARAYANASVVAMY
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT SANGANAHALLI. GANGA SANDARA POST
GOWRIBIDPLANUR TALUK. KOLAR DIST A
8 B S MAHADEVAPPA
S / O M SUBBAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/ AT BIDAGALU, SARAGUR PEOST
H D KOTE TALUK, MYSORE
9 H R RANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEAR__S*-- ._
R/AT HERUR POST " . , ;
KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DIST 2
10 V NAGARAJA;;AH""
S/O VEERANNA.;_.' V. ~
AGED"AB0.U'T 55'
R/AT TAVEREKERE POST. . _
SIRATALUK, TUE!/I'KUR'DAI.S'i"
1 1 H GOVINDE GOWDA S'/OJHEMBEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R,(iAT LAKSHM-I.PURA VILLAGE
C_HOW'_i'HI POST,' PERIAPATNA TALUK
' MYSORE _DIST
A VA'RA'GEr¢DRAPPA
S/O VER:;A'1?ARAMANA SETFY
AGED ~ABQ.UT 51 YEARS
R/AT*~C/O MANJU CYCLE CENTRE
SANTHEPET, FORT, PERJYAPATNA
A A .MySORE-571 107
A T_3'D--CHOwDA:AH
I AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
A R/AT A K STREET, MALUR FATNA
KUDDLUR POST, CHENNAPATNA TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
W.P.NO.22993/2005
_ 3 _
14 K SHIVALINGE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
R/ AT HABTOOR POST
PERIYAPATNA TALUK. MYSORE DISTRICT
15 P A KUTTAPPA
S/0 P K IYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT BENGOOR VILLAGE
CHEREMBONE POST, MADIKERE TALUK
KODAGU DISTRICT ._
16 H VJYOTHOJI RAO .. *
SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED HIS
LEGAL HEIR AND WEFE SAVITHRIBHAI,_ A
R/AT NO 96, RAHAVENDRA NAGPLR
13'?" MAIN ROAD, SR1 NAGAR E A
BANGALORE--5O
17 JAYADEVAPPA
S/O BADREGOWDA I y
AGED ABOUT S2. . _ v_ 'V
R/AT N NIDA'GQDIi BALLUR_POST'* I _
BELUR TALEEK, HASSAN DISTRICT. V '
18 N NINGAIASi51'S'S'v.'vV .
AGEDASQUT 6STIII:AR'S'AwA.__ " _
R/AT MADDURTALUK
MANDYAADISTRIQT I" .
19 I§gScu)VINDAI5PA._VV'V
SINCE ,DE3C EASED'"R'EPRESENTED BY
A,' ~ IIIS LEGALHEIR AND WIFE
SMT." 'SARASWA'I'HAMMA R/AT THOKALAHALLI
A . -S_0w*R1BIDHANUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT.
20 IwI_EMS~oQS KHAN
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
R/AEGEDARE POST, TDNDEBAVI HOBLI
" VISQWRIBIDNURTALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT
S 2.1 'KRISHNE GOWDA
% AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
A R/ AT KATTEMALALALAVADI POST
HUNSUR TALUK. MYSORE DISTRICT
W.P.NO.22993/2005
22 N B SHANTHRAJ
S / O BASAPPA _
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT SIRANGALA POST, SOMAWARAPET TALUK
N KODAGU {VIA KUDIGE}
23 H K THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
R/AT HEMMANAHALLI POST
MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT
24 BASHA SAHED
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
R/AT SOWLANGA POST ' « .
HONNALI TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT A 1
25I,SIDD . ;
SINCE DECEASED REPRESEMTED BY HIS LEGAL
HEIR AND WIFE SMT. LINGAMMAV " .
R/AT NARASINGHANAHALLY V11,,:AQE»V
HOSAKERE POST, MADDUR TALUK. j
MANDYA DISTRECT = " 2 u '
26 PUSPHARAJ '2
S1NcE"DEc_E2;SED§r-: , '
REPF2ESENTE.LfiVBY"HIS« .LEOAI., EEIR AND WIFE
SMT. JAYA}{UMARI~,_ R/AT2.NO 3, IST CROSS
BAK'IHP.u---I,AYOUT
MYsORE"R_OAD, SANG LORE~18
27 VE}'.AZ\&ASHE'I'1"1'--_. V
' ' _ S1:\?cE---DEEEASED"WPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL
V HEIR AND4W1_FE SMT. RAJAMMA
R/AT":~3YL.AEuPPE POST.
. pTER1YAPAT'rJA.TALUK
' MYSORE D'j3STRICT~571 104
g 28 ESVVARAIAH
. AGED.Ai:3OUT 72 YEARS
H * R,/AT BORAVANAHALLY
. _ .TH1;TA POST, KORTAGERE TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT PETITIONERS
Ii: ' = -«DY SR1 T MAI-IESH, ADV. FOR
SR1 D LEELAKRlSHNAN., ADV.)
W.P.NO.22993/2005
1. THE MANAGEMENT OF MYSORE
TOBACCO CO LTD
NO 17, RICHMOND ROAD
BANGALORE--25
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR RE,:§{PON.D-ENS; _
(BY SR1 V S NAIK, ADV. FOR
SR1 K PRABHAKAR RAO.) -
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER' AR'n'CI.ES."223S7&.Q27
OF THE CONSTITUTION OP INDIA PRAYING QUASHE TI~IE--.,
COMMON ORDER DT. 29.6.05'vI~DE ANN--J BY'
PRESIDING OF'FiCER, SECOND "ADDI'I'1ONAL LABOUR COURT.
BANGALORE IN APPLICATION NOS,,61., 59,00, 49,: 55/2000,
9/2001, 52/2000, 19/2001, 56;" "51/2O0O;"'I20/2001, 5.
48/2000, 22/2001, 50, 1.'I./2000,_24/200.1',..8".'~4. 53, 17, 15, 10, 21,
14 AND 12/2000 VIDE ANN,-'A1'A.T,O;A2SIev.AND.VTO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENT TO PAY THE' CLAIMS OF PETITIONERS
PAYABLE BY THIJRESPONDENT UNDER'. SECTION 33(c}92) OF THE INDUSTR1AL'~DISPUTES ACT,» AS PETITIONER IS OOI\IOERNED_,.. ~ ~ THIS" WRIT P:'ETI'1'I'O,N COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN. *'B"--".G.ROUP,,, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING; ' A W_gRDER 'I"h3',S \2V\I1'it_:VVpVeti':ViOII by the workmen is directed Jeornmon order dated 29.6.2005 (Annexured) Additional Labour Court, Bangalore, 2 -V Insoéfar it relates to Application NOS.61 / 2000, u"dj;59/2000, 60/2000, 49/2000, 55/2000, 57/2000, ; 9g200I, 52/2000, 19/2001, 56/2000, 62/2000, "-9.22521/2000, 20/2001, 5/2001, 48/2000, 22/2001, my W.P.No.22993/2005 _5_ 50/2000, 11/2001, 24/2001, 8/2001, 4/2001, 53/2000. 17/2001, 15/2001, 16/2001, 21/2001, 14/2001 and 12 / 2001. By the impugned order, the Labour Court'»has rejected the aforesaid applications filed by the p under Section 33(c)(2} of the industrial~D..iSpu'te:s._Aet'; . 1947 ('the 1.1). Act') claiming cégrtami&1fr¢ars"-fro:;a,___ respondent-managemerit.
2. Learned counsel.' appVearirig""~for the, petitioners sought for an adjourrirI'1ei1t_" -to adjourn the matter; hence 'r_eq1§j.est for .adjtGi1rnri1ent is rejected. I have counsel appearing for Sri. Prahhakar Vrespondermmanagement and perused the imptigvned order at Annexurewd. Vi" learned counsei appearing for the respondendtdfltook me through the impugned order and i3"»~w___v'~assisted__:the Court. As could be seen from page No.25 of the impugned order, AW} during the course "Of; his evidence has stated that the claim of the petitioners was based on a memorandum of settlement X' W.P.No.22993/2005 $0 3 $0 anyone of these applicants have raised any dispute before the competent authority or court demanding that the revised pay scales of the Government servants after 1987 shall also be made applicable to the workmen in the responden_t_Vy:
company. There is also no award or direct'ioffn from any competent authority 88 respondent company to revise J employees on par with einployeé5;\.,, subsequent to 1988. Whedthe wiargesroflij Of the respondent companu_4_G:have.._vnot revised subsequent to the' dated 4.6.1982 and when 'eornpanu has cateqoricallydecidei-d ::to..'re:v'ise V'theV'Vwaqes of its enuolou_ees7on_ the Government servants the "applicants"A:in£ri"»-(ipplication U/sec.33{C}(2} cannotxfiinsist for "..--adiudication as to their _entitle:rzent,' pursuance of the wage revision of ;}3tate'...Govemrrient employees subsequent to down in the case law referred supra scope of Sec.33(C}{2) is very limited and in atuapplication like the one on hand the court it " cannot adjudicate upon the alleged right of the 8' 'z:"ap'plicants to get wages on par with the State Government employees subsequent to 1988.
Where the very basis of the claim of the applicants EX?' W.P.No.22993/2005 _ 9 -
is seriouslu disputed bu the respondent company the said dispute relatina entitlement of the applicants is not incidental and is therefo'r_:"_e, beuond the scope of the proceed-in_g§'wl. U/sec.33{C){2) of the 1.1). Act. As laid douzyttsbgettté ' Hon'ble Supreme Court in the",wal:)ove'''cite'dj:case, '4 law this court has no applicants entitlement _.and lithe-n proceed ° compute the benefit so ..
its power U/sec.33(C)(2) _A'c_t_. In "this regard a useful reference Aalscajphe to principle enounciated a case LLR at page 678 §wl'i.er;'_ein Court of Delhi while dealt'i_tg;:withV has opined that their claimpf in Wwages, it is neither claim or recognised by the the Labour Court has no .}'i.i]'iSCl;l',C'l"iOI1""'~vtVt() _ entertain such a claim 't._»U,'set;3"3{C){2) of the ID Act inuiew of the decision t3_y.1~~the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of '' .l\'4Vlunicipcti'tV;Corporation Delhi VS Ganesh Razak and another. "
(Unclerlining supplied) my opinion, the Labour Court has rightly rejected the applications following the law laid down by the Hon'bIe t / \l\'j\,/ W.P.No.22993/2005 _ 10 -
Supreme Court in ML. CORPN. OF DELHI v. GANESH RAZAK & ANR. [1995{1) LLJ 395). It is a settled position in law that determination of the entitiement workmen to a certain benefit is outside the proceeding under Section 33(C)(2} of . the '.V'Ori_th.e'A 2 facts of the case, I find no Iegal of the Labour Court in rejectirtigtrhe Petition dismissed} _ hkh/Atarv ld