'
ARE R/AT No.5, OLD ASSAY QUARTERS
..I_
IN THE men COURT 012* _ V: k
DATED THIS THE 30m DAY OF sEFI'léNIB=.E3*. 2aiof% T
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE 1\m.JUsT1cE Rl.§I}D',YH
WRIT PETITION No. 122-IQGF'-2(}O'6'4 J
BETWEEN
BHARATH GOLD MI_I\TF;SA ~ 'j_
OORGAUM posT,KGF~_5«:f»312(z.
BY ITS MANAG11\:qDHgECTQR " «._._-_.H.PETITIONER
(By M/S.: RSBQ LAW _V _
AND
1. BALAKRJSHNAV
's11\:cE..'p~EQEAsED BY' 3:133 LRS
1 Km A
RANT'.
COROMANDEL PO, KOLAR GOLD FIELDS
KOLAR DISTRICT.
2 KOTHANDAPNI
M
8 C MARIMUTHU
AGE 72 YEARS é
R/AT C /O. ANANDAN, MANAGER A Y. .3
CORAMNDEL POST
KOLAR GOLD FIELDS +5-6_3 120._ "
KOLAR DISTRICT. A
©
ARUN DOSS SINCE DEAB"BfHiS,_LRS
C SUSHEELA{D1ED)- " A A
PREMA. MAJOR
SHANTH1;'MAJQ'R"g _
A VINCEf~?f]f- BAEU, MAJOR "V
REGINA, MAJOR; " " »
F1UOCU3>
ALL A,RE_RV/A'f;?:.1Q,6,,jSfi1VI1\tIINC:.BATH LAINE,
OORGAUM .;ROS'F_ _ .
KOLAR --.GOLDV.F"IELDS;._KOLAR DISTRICT.
10 MOH.AMED"1BI{Ai«1I§/:~SY
AGE 60 YEARS ' _
A _; R/AT NO';'25, P S JALEEL LAYOUT
- 'M:_INI {ERA}-«IIM-"ROAD
ROBRTISQNPET POST
' Sf "KO[_;AF€*GC~--_LD FIELDS 553 122
AKOLAR DEISTRICT.
1'1 P DORA; RAJ
AGE 72 YEARS
R/AT NO.2, N T BLOCK, OORGAUM POST
'=.KOLAR GOLD FIELDS 563 120
..~KOLAR DISTRICT.
12 PURUSHOTHAM SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
A KANCHANA
W/O. LATE PURUSHOTHAM
AGE 55 YEARS.
B REVATHY
C YEMANI PURNATHILAKAM, MAJOR
D"-i
D MURALI, MAJOR
E JAGADEESHAN, MAJOR
ALL ARE R/AT NO. 1390, NEAR
LMC, OORGAUM POST . '
KOLAR GOLD FIELDS, 563 1--2_1"~~
KOLAR DISTRICT. '
13 RAMA SINGH S1NG._E'j;:>EAD _
A SARASWATHI EA1,,__f' V * 1,. .-
W/O. LATE SR1. -
AGE 4G"'YE9f'sRS..':~.' "
B GAY£$.THRI;.~_I.%Efi",
C .1ViG'H'IN1?f2ER
1:) SURENDER'S;RGI{{"MAJ0R
E V _ LAKSHM1 EAL MAJOR
V. _ MAJOR.
MAI-IANTHI MUTT
" .1\7I?j;TEZ'NP'I:,'T,'I:}IOSKOTE
BANGALOREVHDISTRJCT PIN 562 4.14.
14 M~~EJOSEPH GEORGE SINCE DEAD BY LRS
A if A FRANGINA
" W/O. LT M LJOSEPH GEORGE
AGE 50 YEARS.
A B MARY IMACULATE, MAJOR
C FLORA JAIN, MAJOR
D TONNY PREMA KANYAL, MAJOR
M
E PRAKASI-I GEORGE. MAJOR.
ALL ARE R/AT NO.3, MAE} SHOP LANE
OORGAUM POST, KOLAR GOLD FIELDS '
563 120 KOLAR DISTRICT.
15 G01'-'ANNA
MAJOR
R/AT TAILOR SHOP LANE _ _ .
OORGAUM POST, KGE"-S63 1--2O;;. L
16 K SEGARAN
R/AT NO.
ROBER1'$ONPET,.'KGF_'5_B;3.. 12:2. V .
17 ' *
AGE75 YEARS 4' _ _
R/A'f_ C/O. SR3'.-A P CHANTDRASHEKAR
T T E 'NO... 1373/A'; .3RD ROAD
4TH CROSS; PRAKASH NAGAR
BANGALO'I--?E} _ ~ "
%%%%%
, «AGE 73 YEARS
R;'A'I"'-NO..,D:3 :7.
. 'B' CROSS
' AIV'BLOCK;j_ RAJAJINAGAR.
-- 10.
O MV.LU.R'I'HU1\§A'I'HAN
'~ V SINCE DECEASED BY I-HS LRS
A] SMT. MARGAREITE,
E W/O. LATE M V LURTHUNATHAN
AGE 60 YEARS.
13] SMT. SH EELA
MAJOR
C] JAISHEELAN
EEK
-6-
MAJOR.
D) PRAMILA
MAJOR.
E] SMT. SHAMALA
MAJOR
ALL ARE R/AT No.Io9, NEW A _
ELECTRIC COLONY. OORGAUM Po.'-3T": -_
KOLAR GOLD FIELDS -- 563 120 ' ' *
KOLAR DISTRICT. ._
20 A *
AGE«'60..YEARS Q " H»
R/AT cg/D. B""SAGA¥ANATfLAN
_D.EC'GI\_I 'sE;§;URITz__AGENCY
KHBL*CoL0I's;Y, KORAMANGALA
';_LAYO!.J'I";BANGALORE --' 95.
21 BAs'I--IAIsHAR1Ié'E ~ _
V _ _ AGE" '75 YEARS;
, __ R./AT 13, CHANNAPALLI VILLAGE
:_V.1A:vI.ROBEI"<"TL'5ONPET, PATHEPALLI POST
GOLD FIELDS, KOLAR DISTRICT.
" ._ '22,T"AI"IGU'S;TEN
A ' R_/A-T C/0. METILDA VISWANATH
---- IsI0.-4:1, RAJU STREET
~ HOSUR -- 635 109
TAMIL NADU _
" 2.3=K A MUNISWAMY
: SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
A] M RUKMANI
W/O. LATE K M MUNISWAMY
AGE 60 YEARS.
B] SMT. -SELVALEELA
MAJOR.
LA
C) M RAJENDRAN
MAJOR.
D] SULOCHANA M
MAJOR
E) M SAMPATH
MAJOR.
F} M MANJULA
MAJOR.
ALL ARE 1_2.,!.éxT ,;13, 113 _$AW MILL Lgixiié:
MARIKUPPAl\I_iP__OS'I'-- .
KOLAR QoL1)"1"<'i«:..r-;»:_.;;)S,,_'1<:S__ LAB. .D;Srr.
24. " 'V
SINCE DECEASED__ HIS LRS
A) 1SMT;"MARYVELt::_ABE§IH
_; W/o. SR1. 3.3 GEORGE
AQ1a;VS0 YE '
_
'{.W'.QR
C)": .J.QcK7~1N JOHN KENNEDY
..MA,;0R_
~ VALLAARE R/AT NO.752.
ea"-UBILEE HALL STREET,
_' 'KOLAR GOLD FIELDS -- 563 119
" 'V ._ JKOLAR DISTRICT.
25) A ARULNATHAN
R/AT NO.1238, III CROSS
PIPELINE. ROBERTSONPET
KGF »~ 563 122. g
!2%*'~K
EIELDS -. 563 122';"KOLAR DISTRICT.
' 27;,
S' 28;' P GURUSWAMY
26 S MOHAN RANGAIAH
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS ZLRS" .
A) SMT. SAROJAMMA C =
W/O. LATE S MOHAN EAIVGIAI-:i' "
AGE 65 '
I3] VENKATE3SHAL.U'"'
MMOR I
D]
I ' _ vNWlQR!% _
ALL 4_R/A'l*"C_ SRINIVASA GUPTA
NO, I894,"COROrIATIOI\I TOWN
RQBERTSONPET POST, KOLAR GOLD
AGE: TQYEARS
R/ATNO. 63, NEAR BGML
GU EST HOUSE, OORGAUM POST
~. GOLD FIELDS -- 563 120
KOLAR DISTRICT.
AGE 70 YEARS
R/AT NO.18, NEW ELECTRIC COLONY
OORGAUM POST
KOLAR GOLD FIELDS ~ 563 120
KOLAR DISTRICT.
29) RKODDAND
AGE 70 YEARS
A _ NO.26 'A' WEST
BLOCK; 'MARIKURRIRM POST
2' '.._"-3,.I4(2), 6-7, 9(D), 10-11, 12[A-3), 13(A,C,D,J), 141 -E),
I 15,16,18,19(A--E), R1, 23{D--F), 24(1), 26(A-E), 28, 31[A~~C)
: K KRISHNA FOR R2"? SD
-9-
R/AT NO. 1586
SEENAPPA COMPOUND
V CROSS, ROBERTSONPET POST
KOLAR GOLD FIELDS -- 563 122.
30) K VARADARAJ N I
AGE 73 YEARS
R/AT NO. 10, STED BI.-OCK I
OORGAUM POST ' _ '-
KOLAR GODL FIELDS
KOLAR DISTRICT.
31) PSEVARAJ _ I
SINCE DECEASEDBY HIS: LI-RS '- .
A) §..SI§IT;. PUSHJRARANII .. I
" -- .. if'w/ "D13 SRLVARAJ
I AG':-'._» -
B)'---_' - PUNIYA1v%I¥URTHYS
S
' 'LMAJOR.
GOLD FIELDS -- 563 119
KOLAR DISTRICT. RESPONDENTS
[By : M/S SUBBA RAO & CO FOR C/R1) 81 16
KAN’I’I~:IA FOR R4(1)]
THESE WPS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 81 227 OF
CPC PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DT.6.4.2005
PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL
GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRII*3UNAL-CUM-LABOUR
M
-18.
and documentary and examined the order.§irnpti.gned__,_”_
the only question, for decision making is –‘”whetf_h,er’~.inthe ” ”
facts and circumstances, the ordefr’=impugne’d’of=–._the:
Labour Court, is just, iegairvand valid what r i’
order?”
9. Admittedly ~ ipiéinongst others,
were daily and in terms
of the Bhatt, submitted by
way and implemented w.e.f. 1.4.1969
whence’ designated as monthly
ratedworkei’s; ~._VA:1thoi1gh settiement between the parties
arvrivefd~,_at on 24.10.70 and thereafter on
M R4, revising the pay scale to
j Rs..;7Og2V2O’4′.and fixing the respondents in Grade D3,
A certain differences having cropped up, the revision of
‘ pgayflscale was agreed to be referred to Mr. R N Basu, a
one-man committee who submitted his recommendation
revising the pay scale to Rs.240~355 for ‘D’ group
N
.20
the Central Government over the implementationclcifethe
said recommendation.
10. In the backdrop of the itiso
the case of the petitioner that the
monthly rated workman, in particuylar
who are Fitters — I and finvvfgthe first
instances as Group ~a11d’e;;tending the pay
scale of Rs.70w2~_20, in Group
C in Gradeéllvl ‘Grade ‘D’ in the pay
scale ofwhilel those in Group C in the pay
_ scale?’ of recommended by the one man
»eornmittee’«headed by Sri. Basu, which is pending
the Central Government and hence
cannotvlbelimplemented. It is the further case of the
V’ lffpVetli’tioner that the respondents are not entitled to
G fitment into the pay scale of Rs.330»470 as applicable to
Grade C employees, even if the recommendation is
approved by the Central Government. In addition it is
M
BA
jurisdiction under Sec. 33(C](2) to arrogate
function of an Industrial Tribunal–ancE_ enterlfainv..Claim 9
which is not based on an e>dsting”r_ight b”L1%t’w}:.icifi”rnVay
approptiately be made V of an V
Industriai dispute in:”a..v_reference”iiinder Sec’t’ion’l 10 of the
Act. So also is the in MCD vs.
Ganesh 1 V
V15,’ of Sri. Basu the one
man committee’:’bAe’ing”siib_iect matter of consideration by
the Cenltrall C}oixerninen’t. the Respondent cannot insist
‘they existing right to the pay scales
‘ ,fe’c.on1niendlcd.’and therefore cannot seek to enforce the
said’ recofijiiiendation. So also the claim for the pay
scale. lo? lRs.330~47O recommended by Sri. Basu for
A Gfoup C employees, is not an existing right in the
” respondent so as to seek its enforcement more so,
having not ciystalized into a right. This leads to the
only conclusion that the claim being an Industrial
M
l ‘pay scale of Rs.330–470, cannot but be perverse and
“lunsust.ai1iabie. é i (-
_2(1
the respondent workmen, without examiningjlirelpjexiant
facts and applicabiiity of the iaw. The
aware of its limitations in thelmexerryise of.lj’L’ufisdi~ctiori
under See.33{C}{2} of the Act, proceeded
is in the naiuie of an InduStri’ai Dispuiteiandivihence the
order impugned sufieirs jurisdiction and
from pe1″\»’ers3it.y of pro’ceVdu”_rVe}lv he[_’eLab0ur Court in
paragraph ilvgléffiithihé:iord.e1″;irn;pu§r1ed..haVing noticed that
the respc)iid_cV:?1ts.'”‘ivere:f_i extended the pay scale
attached ” to ‘ employees, called upon the
petitioner’toclarif3f;- which was sufficient to realise that
l .thelV.sEe”opéi~oi’ adjudication ought to be limited to one of
. e:>:ecu-t:io:i not an adjudication of rights of parties.
The fi,;’1din§gla1t paragraph 14 that it is not the case of the
..petitio-rle1- i3Gl\/[L that the respondents were not entitled
I
.2″
if?
.21
As a consequence the further finding that the
respondents should be placed in pay scale of R___s.330–
470 instead of Rs.240–355 in terms
recommendation is not in the nature of Coi11p1iti.nge:th.ei–V»
benefits in terms of money but .thc».dec1;fir’éttio–n’ of
in the respondent which couid ibeihidorieéi’ only”
adjudicatiori of a reference .Se_ctio_r1’%:10;:of”‘the Act’
and hence iiieggal.
V*.._I11’«t’1e’1e succeeds. The order
impugneddhcf Court is quashed and CGA
Nois /1939 o1¢i.No_,&7/76 stands rejected.
Sd/-*
Iudge