Karnataka High Court
Bengaluru Electricity Supply Company ... vs Sri C Kollaiah on 8 January, 2020
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ON THE 08TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I. ARUN
WRIT APPEAL No.922 OF 2019 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
BENGALURU ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY (BESCOM)
HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE,
AT BESCOM, K R CIRCLE,
BENGALURU-560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR
NOW REPRESENTED BY
M.MOHERA G.M (ADMN & HR)
... APPELLANT
(BY Ms. ANU BHARADWAJ FOR
SRI. HARIKRISHNA S. HOLLA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI C KOLLAIAH
SON OF LATE CHAWDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
RESIDING AT J.C.R EXTENSION
JAGALUR TOWN,
JAGALUR TALUK,
DAVANGERE DISTRICT- 577528.
2
2. SRI. NATARAJA S
SON OF LATE SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
RESIDING AT J.C.R. EXTENSION,
JAGALUR TOWN,
JAGALUR TALUK,
DAVANGERE DISTRICT 577528.
3. SRI. MANJUNATHA N
SON OF NAGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
RESIDING AT INDIRA EXTENSION,
JAGALUR TOWN
JAGALUR TALUK,
DAVANGERE DISTRICT- 577528.
4. SRI. MARUTHESH N
SON OF NAGARAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KUSHANAHALLI VILLAGE,
JAGALUR TALUK,
DAVANGERE DISTRICT-577528.
5. SRI. NAGARAJ M
SON OF LATE MALLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
RESIDING AT J.C.R EXTENSION,
JAGALUR TOWN,
JAGALUR TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT- 577528.
6. SRI. PAPANNA R
SON OF CHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
RESIDING AT THIMMALALPURA VILLAGE,
JAGALUR TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577528.
3
7. SRI. NIJALINGAPPA D
SON OF DURUGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
KYASANAHALLI VILLAGE,
JAGALUR TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577528.
8. SHAFIULLA
SON OF BASHA SAB.,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
BHARAMASAMUDRA VILLAGE,
JAGALUR TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577528.
9. N.R. MURTHY
SON OF K. CHANDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
MARINAHALLI,
JAGALUR TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577528.
10. SRI. SANTHOSH T.K
SON OF OBAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
PAPALINGESHWARA EXTENSION
JAGALUR TALUK,,
DAVANGERE DISTRICT- 577528.
11. SRI. K.P. SHIVAPRAKASH
SON OF PRAHALADAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
RESIDING AT DIBADAHALLI VILLAGE,
JAGALURU TALUK,
DAVANGERE DISTRICT- 577528.
12. SADATHULLA
SON OF MAHABUB SAB,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
4
RESIDING AT M.M. ROAD,
JAGALURU TOWN,
JAGALURU TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577528.
13. SRI. UMESH C.B
SON OF C.R. BASAVARAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
RESIDING AT BILICHOUD VILLAGE,
JAGALURU TALUK,
DAVANGERE DISTRICT- 577528.
14. SRI. H. PARASHURAM
SON OF HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
RESIDING AT ASOGULU VILLAGE,
JAGALURU TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT- 577528.
15. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED
(KPTCL)
HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT
CAUVERY BHAWAN, K.G.ROAD,
BANGALORE-560009
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
16. STATE OF KARNATAKA
ENERGY DEPARTMENT,
ROOM NO.236, 2ND FLOOR,
VIKASA SOUDHA,.
DR. B R AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BANGALORE-560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
... RESPONDENTS
5
(BY SRI LAKSHMINARAYANA, AGA FOR R-16;
R-1 TO R-8, R10, R-12 TO R-15 ARE SERVED
AND UNREPRESENTED;
SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R-9 IS ACCEPTED VIDE
ORDER DATED:18.10.2019;
NOTICE TO R11 IS SERVED VIDE ORDER
DATED:03.12.2019)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4
OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO
CALL FOR THE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF SINGLE
JUDGE AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED:15/12/2018 IN WRIT PETITON Nos.54914-
54927 OF 2017.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH
J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the order dated 15.12.2018 passed in writ petition Nos.54914-54927 of 2017 by the learned single judge, in disposing off the writ petition in terms of the judgment dated 25.10.2018 in cognate writ petition Nos.6556-6560 of 2018 and other connected matters, the respondent No.3 therein is in appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the order of the single judge is 6 erroneous. That the judgment relied upon by the learned single judge is not applicable to the instant Institution. The judgment relied upon pertains to the Bengaluru Electricity Supply Company. The learned Single Judge therein directed the respondents to pay wages of the petitioners on par with regular junior line men and the same shall be paid to the petitioners within three months thereof.
3. It is contended that the petitioners have been working in different positions. Therefore, all of them cannot be regularized or be paid wages in line with regular junior line men. Since each one of them are performing different function and they will be entitled to different wages. Therefore, to equate all of them to the regular junior line men is erroneous.
4. The respondents are served and unrepresented.
7
5. On hearing learned appellant's counsel, we are of the view that appropriate interference is called for. 'Equal pay for equal work' cannot be denied. However, payment on this basis on par with the regular linemen as has been done in Writ Petition Nos.6556-6560 of 2018 on 25.10.2018, is inappropriate.
6. The petitioners are holding different positions. They all cannot get the same salary. The writ petitioners are entitled for such pay to the post they are holding. All of them cannot be equated with a common post of a junior linemen.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, the order dated 15.12.2018 passed in Writ Petition Nos.54914- 54927/2017 by the learned single judge, is set aside. However, the appellant is directed to pay wages to the writ petitioners for the post that they are holding.
8
With the above directions, the writ appeal is disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE MH/-