Entitlement to additional remuneration under the Payment of Wages Act and maintainability of the claim under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the 10th respondent, passed in G.O.No.(D)448 dated 30.5.1996 in order to implement the award passed by the 9th respondent, the Labour Court, Tirunelveli, in C.P.No.139 of 1992 dated 18.7.1994 and to quash the same.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the respondents 1 to 8 were employed as Mazdoor category under the Nominal Muster Roll and were paid for the work attended by them; that they were engaged by the TWAD Board, whenever new schemes were initiated they could be terminated from service without giving prior notice; that the respondents 1 to 8 filed a claim petition before the 9th respondent, the Labour Court, Tirunelveli, stating that they had worked for 30 days in a month and that they were paid additional remuneration of 30% in total wages since 1978 and that since the petitioner had refused to pay such additional remuneration they are entitled for compensation and interest @ 12% for belated payment; that the learned Labour Judge passed an award dated 18.7.1994 made in C.P.No.139 of 1992 in favour of the respondents 1 to 8; that the respondents 1 to 8 had filed an application to recover the amount as awarded in C.P.No.139/92 dated 18.7.1994 which had been duly published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette under Labour and employment Department vide G.O.(D) No.448/Dt.30.5.1996 to recover the sum due under the Revenue Recovery Act; that the 11th respondent is initiating the proceeding under the Revenue Recovery Act to recover the sum as awarded in the said claim petition.

3. The further case of the petitioner is that the work which had been looked after by the Office of the Assistant Executive Engineer Urban Sub-Division, Tirunelveli was entrusted to the Office of the Assistant Executive Engineer, Maintenance Sub-Division, Kovilpatti during the month of May, 1995; that the 30% additional remuneration will be given only to the NMR workers who are working in rural areas; that since the respondents 1 to 8 were regularised through proceeding No.807/E2/92/dt.9.3.1995 with effects from the date of the completion of 2 years of service, i.e. respectively from 25.2.84, 25.2.84, 15.12.84, 2.12.84, 24.6.78 and 5.12.84 for a consolidated pay of Rs.1,000/- they are not entitled for 30% additional remuneration irrespective of the area they worked.

4. The further case of the petitioner is that as per clause 3 and clause 4 of the 12(3) settlement entered into between the petitioner management and the representatives of various unions before the Joint Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation) vide No.P2/348/96/Dt.8.8.1996, the workers who have been regularised in service have to forego the back wages and other benefits at the same time if the persons who have been regularised in service have been paid a consolidated pay of Rs.1,000/- if they have not been paid so, in such cases they are entitled for the arrears and hence, they are not entitled for the sum as claimed for. On such averments, the petitioner has come forward to file the above Writ Petition for the relief extracted supra.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents 10 and 11 with no representation for the respondents 1, 3 to 8 and the materials placed on record have also been perused.

6. During arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Labour Court has passed an award in favour of the respondents 1 to 8 based on the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tirunelveli dated 25.8.1988, which is only a claim in respect of Rs.234/- claimed under Section 7(2) of the Payment of Wages Act for the period from October 1987 & November 1987 and that it has nothing to do with the claim of the respondents 1 to 8; that the claim of the respondents 1 to 8 is Rs.6,885/- each for a period of 3 years i.e. 1988, 1989 and 1990; that the facts and circumstances of the case referred to in the aw