HARI NATH TILHARI, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal has been filed by the management of the State bank of India, under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, challenging the Judgment and order dated 19-7-1994, passed by the learned single Judge of this Court whereby the learned single Judge has been pleased to dismiss the writ petition filed by the present appellant-bank.

( 2 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and before recording our reasons for dismissing the appeal, a few facts need to be mentioned:

( 3 ) THE petitioner-appellant by writ petition under Article 226 as sailed the order awarding unpaid wages to the extent of Rs. 8,000/- to the respondent passed by the Industrial tribunal dated 30-5-1994, vide Annexure-A to the writ petition. The respondent no. 1 according to the facts appearing from record was working as temporary watchman with the appellant from 1977. Thereafter on 4-3-86 his services were terminated. The respondent thereafter approached the Assistant Labour commissioner, who initiated conciliation proceedings. Thereafter, the opposite parties agreed to employ the respondent temporarily and the respondent was given employment again. While serving as watchman he was carrying the duties of a regular watchman and according to the applicant the permanent/regular watchman were paid double of the wages that were being paid to the applicant. The respondent before the labour Court on the principle of law equal pay for equal work alleged and claimed that he is entitled to get the wages that used to be ordinarily paid to the regular watchman as the duties and responsibilities of both were same.

( 4 ) THAT the present appellant who was the opposite party before the Labour Court and petitioner in the writ petition denied the workman's claim and then the claim was preferred before the Labour Court. Considering the facts of the case, the labour Court came to the conclusion: "therefore, I would like to state that the applicant has been given lesser salary than the permanent watchman. Though the applicant was carrying the same duties as permanent watchman, the opposite party has not given any cogent and definite details as to why they were paying lesser salary. " Therefore, making a reference to the principles laid down by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, Labour court took the view that the applicant before it i. e. , the present respondent No. 1 was entitled to the salary of a permanent watchman. The Labour Court also observed that the applicant i. e. , the present respondent has stated in his application that he was to get a sum of Rs. 8,000/-, but in evidence he prayed for Rs. 30,000/ -. Finally the Labour Court held the workman i. e. , respondent No. 1 to be entitled to Rs. 8,000/- and issued a direction to the effect that the applicant is entitled to claim from opposite parties Rs. 8,000/- and that opposite parties should pay rs. 8,000/- to the applicant, with interest at 6% per annum, on the said amount. From this order, the petitioner-bank, i. e. , the appellant filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India and it was alleged that there was no valid reason justifying the finding of Rs. 8,000/- i. e. , finding to the effect that the workman has been entitled to the difference sum of Rs. 8,000/ -. The learned single Judge, looked to the matter and considered as well as found that justice has been done to the parties and there is no need to re-open the case.

( 5 ) HAVING felt aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge, the State Bank of India has presented this special appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act. The same contention has been raised and it has been contended that the learned single Judge of this Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 226 of the constitution, by not interfering with the finding of the Labour court to the effect that the workman has been entitled to a difference of Rs. 8,000/- though that findin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document