¥N THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED TEES THE 3. 1'31 DAY OF' AUGSSF, 2010
PR ESENT
THE HONBLE MR. .1. S. KHEHAR, cnmp'
AND
THE HONBLE MRS. JUS'1'¥CE'. MANJULA' {:;HELI.{;1§2 1'
wan' APPEAL N()S.398:'3 dz? 2Q09?{s§:R ESj"- 7
&' .
2937-2990 0572010 (S-Rigs; V
BIETWEEN
The Mysore Sugar
Company Lixnited
Sugar Town.
Mandya--5?1'-402 V
Represented by 1 = _ - '
ti:1eC.A.(). APPELLANT
(By M3:. ;,J. 1f*ram}:$;1--- ' '
1. Ygfi;
_____
. tX"ge<i:":€ii;*. R..._Nq..s33Q:§
2. £2, samjag' '
Wu/0 Bommaiah
Age£i.,a§3out 54 years
A «H. R,"No.43582
Shingarappa
S] 0 Venkatappa
' Aged about 52 years
Working as Boiler Mazdoor
P. R. Nc;.15195
4. K. S. Ravi Kumar
S] o Shixzarzagajah
Ageé about 28 years
Working as Mill Mazdoor
P'. R. N-9.15253 »
5. Haseena Begum
W] 0 Nisar Ahameci
Aged about 45 years
working as Mill Mazdoor
P. R. No.4{)486
6. Bhagra C
W] 0 Chcnnappa
Aged about 38 years
Working as Mi11'MaZdj00r ' ~.
RR.
7. .
8. J. ii'amu "~
W/o
Aged} abo%1t'VE§t3 yeéagrs _ '
Working. as ,M'i::"e;;azdoar' .. '
P. R. P~l0.£--5284 '
S 130 Javare
ivsgéd ;a1bout 54
' Vworkiag asxfloilttr Mazckpor
Sfio Shivafingaypa
Ageuzi about 55 years
Working as Manufacuuing Chemist
V' 9:48. No/$138
' Mahcswarappa
+3,»
S/0 Ramappa
Aged about 36 years
Working as Mcmlcler If
F. R. No.19 185
1 1.Sh¢shag1'n' S
8/0 Shiva Madaiah
Aged about 31 years
Working as Mill Mazdoor
P. R. No. 15260
12.Kris11na Babu T.K
S/0 Kempa Lakkaiah
Aged about 31 years
Working as Mill Mazdoor
P. R. No. 15215
13.01. M. Nagaxaju
S/0 Motagypa
Aged about 53 years
Working as Boi1e1f MazdQo--r Vv
P. R. No.1E">1-43..
14.x. B. Somaiah
S10 Lats Boxaiah
Ageé about 46'*j,:eai5; "
Working as (:1:-:14:
P. R. N(}.43599 V' V"
15.AI3thony Steven
S/:3 S;*i:t1ivas"
Agedfgabdmt 30 years
.. V. as Dvfifiiévr
»P.'«R, N9.4?0§'?._
16.Shi:;k:a1" « _ ,
S/Q Ghikkaihimmaiah
_ Ageéi a¥:;£;>utv32 years
V._Wc>rkingA-'as Fire Man
3 'P R. N<5."15215
" working in
Mysore Sugar Compamy
-«Limited, S21ga:rTown
Mandya~57 1 402
24.Shanmu am
S /0 Sun ax
Agcé about 39 years
Working as Welder
P. R. 530.1920?
25.Y. (3. Shivashankara
Sfo Chikka Lingaiah
Aged about 39 years
Working as Fire Brigade
P. R. No.14984 '
26.}3ore Gowda
S/0 Rams Gowda
Ages} about 30 years _ V
Working as Pan'--Mazdir"' --
P. R. No.439:6"»_ '_< - 1.
27.6. 3. 'L -I
S] 0 J3.vare,€';mVd3=.
Aged about 3'? yeaig. H
Working aS"--Att£*:3:1der" -»_ 'A
P. R. No.245E)§?~ '- '
23.9. S. Shxeedhaxa' _
'S./0 Shae:-}3an':na V " '
Aged ai.2oi1t5..€~1~4 ygars
'i.3._'o:*mg as Fsttendsr
L"-2§,.shaxi1ca__"ra"% mm .55
T SE10 Nar'asai;ah*
-. about 452 years
_ " V .WQr1€ing aswaigh Bridge Attendar
._P';AR._Nd;~43$75
Vimala Kumari
. _W,l+:;-Bamodharan Nair
Agcci about 4'7 years
L "~ " orking as Attender
P. R'. No.3438(}
(7%
3 1. N. Kannan
S/0 Late Nataraj
Aged about 43 years
Working as Attendsr
P. R. N034386
32.C1i::am1a13kaia}:1
8/ 0 Chizmarah
Aged about 34 years
Working as Wire Man
P. R. No.209'7O
33.Y. K. Manjula
W/0 Y. N, Krishna
Agezi about 42 years
Working as Mill Mazcioog"
:9. R. N04708:
34. M. Shanthamma
W/0 Sidda1;$fpaji'::§:,: 'V
Age:;{i_abou_t A53-vycars --.
Working as 7
"<hsw~' 9%
These Appeals eonxizag on for Hearing on
this day, Chief Justice, delivetned the fcallowing:
JUDGMENT
The respondents’ salaxy was allegedly
at a higher stage than they were aictuzlllyrexitiiied.
appellant therefoze, desired to redizee tile». eame bf
their entitlement. For the apfiaellaxzt
issued notices dated ‘:s.é§i;” 14; The only
submission advanced by.ss-~tl1e~. ;-cssnsel for the
appellant }!:as,Autl3.;§itliégthefijlthtindl respoinding to the aforesaid
notices, itis ‘asserted-,..–.re$pondents approached this
Court by fifipg 200’? (as also other writ
‘_.VpetitiQI:_;?;e)l; it “wssV1ss:stended at the hands of the
V. Wages were fixed at a higher level,
uidjlafexellf ._V_ V V the respondents, Without any
_teis:ef:–1es€:titat§en by the respondents. Accordingly, it was
W M ” ‘_””-§d”S’€2f§I’tCd.'{Lz.7i€t.1t. it was not open to the appellant to reduce the
2. While considering the aforesaid submission the
learned single Judge relying on the Judgment rendered by
31
the Apex Cows”: in the ease of Sahib Ram V. State of Halyana
–~ 1995 Suppl. (1) sec 18 arrived at the conclusion…
was not open to the appellant to eflect any ~
respondents on account of the facthithaté the i’;}:;e “‘
respondents had been fixed
without any misrepresentati§ n’_V at “then har§c3;S.¢: nof tihevé
zespoudents. in the 2 filfie Vvfmatter,
W.P.i13/2007 (as also pefifiens) was
allowed. ‘V ”
3. advanced by
the respon{1.eu;Vits; in the aforesaid
gaazagraggh, Jzidge granted iiberty to the
appellant ‘£o’__’ Vpase’ * pzospectively re~f2xing the
emaI}1__i@eI:ts of fi:e*_:VV:Iesp{>ndents. The aforesaid liberty was
aficrgied ti]jie..va;3pe1la:1t by requiring them to follow the
in iaw. ~
4., ‘fiiuxing the course of hearing of the instant writ
A learned counsel for the appe}}ant does not contest
pftapositioxx of law on the basis whereof, the learned
” eifxgle Judge has! accepted the contention of the
WW
£2
respondents. It is aleo apparent that no further aeti'<':vIV:i".<
been taken by the apgaeilant to pass a:£1 appmpziate' 0Vxt:3,ei~ "
ae to re—fix the emoluments of the Iesipetidenteu
5. Despite the aforesaid Vfae_tna1tpeei–?ion tht1t’..e11ierg;e.e’~ V
from the pieadings of this case, eeifiexitiefz atiyatlced
by the leaxned eoux1sei’.”~V.for tttat the
entertainment of the hands of the
learned singie Jae’;ee:jwas::ApIebtet~§itu;:e}’»vt’ possible for as
to accept etiyaeeed by the learned
counsel: the fact, that through
the imf,.ng:§ee 13/ :4/15. 12.2006, the
em01ument§e’…_Vg;fv t11_e tfisttfjondents had actuaiiy been
‘~ reeeveiyhadv also been ordered, in respect of the
What has been desezébed as no’t:ice(s) by
was] were orders adversely afiecting the
‘V civii the respondents. Relevant extract of the
x V’ order is being xe–produced hereunder:
“The above subject was placed before the
Beam} of Directors on 14» 12~20{)S. As per the
Board reeolution under reference (2) the Bears}
has gassed the fellewing resoiutiotl;
CT
£3
a) It is xesohzed that the irregular benefitw
of Increase in pay already extended«V.oto’ ~
no11–co13fir1:11ed employees and
empioyees which was go: as V
Tripartite wage
recommendations be 2 n
the pay fixatioii__'”do11eA’as
recoz33men(I£i[i’0x1sV’d””of d ftié – ,. ; Trifiéifife
Wage Conf1ai9;tee* _ dd % ‘relevant
Eiatfigy . A’ H
b) iffiisi1″eeoIvefi«:.”to._.recover the
V” paid $0 such
____ H ez;:{pio;{ees as such irregular
_’ fxgéétiou fi’s.’;fefe::*ed above.
L d d hereby informed that
Exes beeii: taken to withdraw the
E ¥3e1r.:s..efit of Increase in pay given to
V .gg.;;”‘vide ref.(1) above. The details of the
amount aetuafiy drawn;
tile difference amount to be recovered
.wI}ieh was paid are as enclosed.”
A ‘id’ :Since the Wages payable to the respondents were
to be reduced, and the alleged excess paid to them
ddtvhadés ordered. to be recovered, and that too Without following
the rules or intezest of jusfiee, we are satisfied that the
I4
leaxneé single Judge was fully justified in emcrtaining the
Wfit patition ané éisposing ofthc same 911 merits.
For the reasons recaded hcztép a}_:$t}v::,”«_w’é u V135
IncfitB1flmszqnxwdandthssammig1nfi%hfkfisnfi$$fli” ‘A
Since the main Writ bfifgfl
merits, the application not
survive for comideration. 4’ V Vv Z ‘A
fusfice
Sd/-
JUDGE