Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : CH.S.R.K.PRASAD, S.R.NAYAK
Executive Engineer, Penstock Fabrication and Erection Division - Appellant
Versus
P.Seshagiri Rao - Respondent
Decided On : 04-11-02
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 33-C (2) and 10 (1 ) - Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950 - Section 20 - Industrial Dispute - Direct recruits working in Penstock Fabrication and Erection Division - Entitled for wages - Appeal questioning correctness of the order - Government issued G. O. Ms. No. dated which came into force from extending the pay scale to NMR workers working in Project on par with work-charged establishment employees - The said benefit was initially not extended to direct recruits working in Penstock Fabrication and Erection Division - Under those circumstances, respondents 1 to 51 herein, on an earlier occasion, filed an application under Section 33-C (2) of the Act, but that application was dismissed by Labour Court holding that G. O. Ms. No. 242, dated is not applicable to them - Learned Labour Court opining that rule equal pay for equal work is well established by the several pronouncements of Apex Court and that the respondents-workmen, who are discharging similar work on par with other workers in Srisailam Project thought it fit to allow petition filed by workmen - Accordingly, Labour Court by its order dated allowed petition and declared that respondents-workmen are entitled to a total sum of and directed Government and its authorities concerned to pay the same to workmen with costs quantified – Held, Court observed:"it is only when entitlement has been earlier adjudicated or recognized by employer or thereafter for the purpose of implementation or enforcement thereof some ambiguity requires interpretation, that the interpretation is treated as incidental to the Labour Court s power under Section 33-C (2) like that of executing Court s power to interpret the decree for the purpose of its execution - If this is the position in law, the Labour Court ought not to have gone into question whether respondent-workmen have a right to receive wages on par with the work-charged establishment employees - In that view of the matter, Court are of considered opinion that Labour Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in allowing petition of the respondents-workmen - In that view of the matter, order of learned single Judge also cannot be sustained - Writ appeal is allowed.
( 1 ) THE Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Secretary, Irrigation and Power Department and other authorities in the said department have filed this writ appeal questioning the correctness of the order of the learned single Judge dated 10-7-1990 made in Writ Petition No. 7902 of 1985 affirming the order of the Labour Court, Guntur dated 11-9-1984 made in Miscellaneous Petition No. 77 of 1982. The respondents 1 to 51 herein filed the above MP No. 77 of 1982 before the Labour Court under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act ) claiming the difference of wages in terms of G. O. Ms. No. 242, Major Projects Department, dated 1-6-1977 with effect from 30-4-1976 consequent upon the issuance of G. O. Ms. No. 163, Irrigation (Projects-Wing) Department, dated 11-5-1982 extending the benefit of G. O. Ms. No. 242, dated 1-6-1977 to the direct recruits working in the Penstock Fabrication and Erection Division, Cuddapah.
( 2 ) THE facts leading to the filing of MP No. 77 of 1982 before the Labour Court can be, briefly, noted as hereunder:
( 3 ) THE Government issued G. O. Ms. No. 242, dated 1-6-1977, which came into force from 30-4-1976, extending the pay scale to the NMR workers working in Srisailam Project on par with work-charged establishment employees. The said benefit was initially not extended to the direct recruits working in Penstock Fabrication and Erection Division, Cuddapah. Under those circumstances, the respondents 1 to 51 herein, on an earlier occasion, filed an application under Section 33-C (2) of the Act, but that application was dismissed by the Labour Court holding that G. O. Ms. No. 242, dated 1-6-1977 is not applicable to them. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Labour Court, the respondent-workmen preferred WP No. 6490 of 1979 before this Court and ultimately that writ petition was withdrawn by the respondents-workmen on an assurance made by the Government that the benefit of G. O. Ms. No. 242, dated 1-6-1977 would be made applicable to them also. Subsequently, the Government issued G. O. Ms. No. 163, dated 11-5-1982 extending the benefit of G. O. Ms. No. 242, dated 1-6-1977 to the direct recruits working in Penstock Fabrication and Erection Division, Cuddapah. Subsequently, by an amendment of G. O. Ms. No. 163, dated 11-5-1982, it was clarified that the direct recruits working in Penstock Fabrication and Erection Division, Cuddapah are entitled to the wages in terms of G. O. Ms. No. 242, dated 1-6-1977 only with effect from the date of G. O. Ms. No. 163, i. e. , with effect from 11-5-1982. The respondents-workmen being aggrieved by the said action of the Government, filed MP No. 77 of 1982 before the Labour Court, Guntur under Section 33-C (2) of the Act claiming the relief as already noticed above. The learned Labour Court opining that the rule equal pay for equal work is well established by the several pronouncements of the Apex Court and that the respondents-workmen, who are discharging similar work on par with other workers in Srisailam Project, thought it fit to allow the petition filed by the workmen. Accordingly, the Labour Court by its order dated 11-9-1984 allowed the petition and declared that the respondents-workmen are entitled to a total sum of Rs. 12,07,036. 10 ps. and directed the Government and its authorities concerned to pay the same to the workmen with costs quantified at Rs. 100. 00.
( 4 ) THE Government and its authorities being aggrieved by the said order of the Labour Court preferred Writ Petition No. 7902 of 1985, which was disposed of by a learned single Judge. The order reads as follows:"the NMR workers who were aggrieved by the conduct of the petitioners in not paying the amount as that was being paid to the other workers in the same unit filed an application under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Originally, G. O. Ms. No. 242, dated 10-6-1977 has been passed but that G. O. was applied only in the case o
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.