Claiming future salary payments under Section 34 is improper while a Section 33C(2) application regarding past dues is pending, as both grievances address the same issue of salary compliance.

JUDGMENT :

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

1. This writ appeal is preferred challenging the order dated 23.02.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.10264/2022 (L-RES).

2. We have heard Shri Dhyan Chinnappa, learned senior counsel as instructed by Shri K.S.Bheemaiah, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, Shri V.S.Naik, learned counsel appearing for caveator/respondent No.1 and Shri N.R.Girisha, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

3. The writ petition was filed by the first respondent herein, challenging the decision of second respondent herein dated 24.01.2022, which was produced as Annexure-K. A direction was sought to the first respondent to grant permission by considering the application dated 29.09.2021, filed by the respondents herein to prosecute the appellant- Company for violation of the terms of the award. The respondents herein had filed the application seeking permission for prosecution of the employer/appellant. The said application was rejected by the Regional Labour Commissioner on the ground that there is a proceeding pending before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('ID Act' for short).

4. The learned Single Judge noticed that there were earlier proceedings before this Court which had culminated in W.A.No.1980/2010 c/w. W.A.No.2179/2010. It was found that the Division Bench had held that the workmen of the canteen would be entitled to be treated on par with permanent unskilled workers of respondent No.2 and would be entitled to arrears of the difference in their salaries and emoluments. Thereafter, the Division Bench of this Court by Judgment dated 12.03.2015 in W.A.No.1980/2010 c/w. W.A.No.2179/2010 had directed the workmen to approach the CGIT under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. The workmen had approached the Tribunal and their application was pending.

5. However, the learned Single Judge accepted the contention of the respondents that the 33C(2) application filed by the workmen before the CGIT was with regard to the determination of the past dues and not as regards to the future payment. It was therefore found that the application for prosecution being with regard to the future payment to be made to the workmen, the claim was outside the scope of the application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act and that the rejection of the same was improper. The writ petition was therefore allowed. The impugned order of the Regional Labour Commissioner was set aside and the mandamus was issued to the Regional Labour Commissioner to consider the application filed by the first respondent herein on merits with reference to the directions issued by the learned Single Judge.

6. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant that the findings of the learned Single Judge are per se factually incorrect. Drawing our attention to the orders passed in the earlier round of writ petitions, it is contended that the Division Bench in W.A.No.1980/2010 c/w. W.A.No.2179/2010, had clearly held that the workmen of BEML canteen at Mysuru are entitled for equal wages on par with the permanent unskilled workers of the BEML, considering the hardship that would be caused to BEML, the arrears of difference in salaries and emoluments are reduced to 35%. The Special Leave Petition preferred against the said judgment by the appellants herein was dismissed. Thereafter, the Company issued a communication dated 31.12.2015 stating that the award and the directions of the Division Bench had been complied with. The Union filed Writ Petition No.36848/2016 (L-RES) seeking directions to the appellant to comply with the d