High Court Karnataka High Court

The Mangalore City Corporation vs The Secretary South Kanara … on 27 May, 2011

Karnataka High Court
The Mangalore City Corporation vs The Secretary South Kanara … on 27 May, 2011
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
EX.)

ORDER

Petitioner~1\/iysore City Corporation”‘aggrie’2’eti ‘myth

the award dt. 23.4.2001 in ;Ref.5_’_’Pé’Vo.288’;5§O:V

Industrial Tribunal, Mysorehae presentegiiivpetition. ‘ V

2. The eepoused the
cause of its petitioneix
Corporation and
regularisation’ tiates of engagement,
referred to the Industrial
TribunA2iLV._LMyeoregmibri”ntijwiidication was registered as

Ref.4gf\Io.2i68/V9OA…_V_VVVit V

the Tribunal, the claim petition were

reeiisihted. filing statement of objections of the

VApetitionercorporation, arraigned as second party,

Viifwéhence the petitioner did not examine witness but

“produced one document marked as EXJVI1, while for the

responden1:~Union, one Witness was examined as WW4

and four documents marked as E§xs.Wi to W4. E3X.W2

is .3. copy of the proceed:

of one sweeper for every 508 population Wof ti-“;–e”._

second party. _ _ _

The demand under Point of
is partly accepted, directingjthlel’see-end-:’paiityVV.te’l”h
appoint l7′ bacilli workers listed to
Vacant posts in the 0rdei’–.._ef seiiichity i2€2:itii’e1.”.f§}ct
from the date of availability’ said. ‘tiesvts.

The demand tlfideiilj l5Gi.ht di'”‘dispute
No.I(6)(i) is accepted’! second party to
regularise the serviees {if all listed
in EX.W–;4′ leihlployied inethes Section of
the the date of their
appVQintme:11t.;as el§x.W–4.”

Learried”‘:e0t14nstei for the petitioner is correct in
his suhniissioiri relief is in excess of the

jurisdic:ti<')11VimIested~,ii'1<.the Industrial Tribunal under III

'_ Se_I:i§::.dVule to thie-Vlridustrial Disputes Act, 1947. I say so

V heeause".iri.,iti1e_ III Schedule matters that fall within the

j.ui9i.sdiVetie_n the Industrial Tribunal are as follows:

"Matters within the jurisdiction of Industrial

"15ifiIiJuna1s:

A’ l. Wages, including the period and mode of

payment;

2. Cempensatery and other ailowaneesg

feiil

S

3. Hours of work and rest intervals:

Leave with wages and holidays; _ _ p

5. Bonus, profit sharing, provident
gratuity: _ it at

6. Shift working otherwise; »th.an in” <ila.;i1;j_"§V
with standing orders; it 4' V H

7. Classification by grades; 4′
Rules of discipline;

9. Rationalisation; _ _ K _ V

10. Retrenehmen’t”‘~._of elosnre of
establishment;land’i’v–~u:’ _ __

11. Any otiier matter be prescribed.”

5.A___ In.t’tie’.;_]:jglit:_of in Secretary, State
of —v– Umadevi (3) and othersl,
reliefs “o_rdered~.._b§{<t,li'e.__:'"L:ibour court for regularisation

anci–al§sorptiorl~hof rated/badli workers who were

. 'engaged illegallgl/gland whose appointments, if any, were

not ' with the Cadre and recruitment

regulations of the petitioner or were not irregular, it

reeannot abut be said to be impermissible and illegal.

E zooegzn see i

In the result, the writ petitian is allowed. The
impugned award is quashed and the referenCe',1:iee<§1e_V'by

the State government rejected.

In.