..2.. THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER AR3TlC"g§:$I:' AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION 012' INDIA p:2AI(II:~II§;;..e1*;;IIT QUASH THE ORDER D'r.5-5-2002 PASSED, BY THE _ SECOND ABEL. LABOUR comm',JI3ANGALé'RE;sMA;)'E IN APPLICATION No.32/90 AS THE S;-i'\ME'I€~,_ UNSU-Sfi'A_IP§ABLE'« Ahifi MANIFE$I'LY ERRONEOUS. THIS WRIT PE'i'ITIO!~!: KSOMIENG' ON* 'P'vf)R.V.'RENAL-.t" HEARING THIS DAY, THE COU'R,'f*MADE'THE IFQLLTQWING: .
The petitioner whee in H-2
was in terme. C§iit:I’:1e c1td.28.{)2.1983,
disclosing ‘. 15-425-20-435-
25-56(J’;vv’w.4:.;; the basic salary was fixeé.
at Rs.38′{«)V_,’._ allowance of RS130/..
p.m._§ ‘HRA of RvsA.:1O#2/ – p.1.n., totalling to Rs.612/- p.n1., with
“ot1:Iér.befiicfits,._ 011 fifemofion fromgfirade-F2 to F3 the basic
in Grade–F’3. The Employees Associati-an
eIit’e.redV__into agreement with the respondent on 28.3.1990
the of concfliairion proceedings under Section 12(3)
fi58(3) of the Industxial DiS§3″I,11’£S Act 1947 , for 31710171: Act,
_,_W§ereunder benefits extencied zetxespeciively w.e.f.
1. 1.1990, resulted in the fixing of the petitioner’s basic pay
as on 1.1.1990, after sanction of annua} increment, at
W
-4-
2. Whether the applicant is K
computation of the amount as c1a1’med_’E’§V__
3. What order ‘2
2. The labour court cTie;§o’e:iefi0n.~a1 ..
applicant as AW-1 and the ‘V
respondent examined the Pereonziel as KW-1 and
marked the Memora,nduii1’oi”‘ .
3. The the material on
1’ecor{i,*’tlfie’ é1ii(i”documenta1y, by order (it.
5.6.2{}(‘§”2 ” the vexsion of the
management aJ:tdV the pei:itioner’s basic pay fixed at
*-__Wasui11«aecordance with the terms of settlezzaent
‘éiri<i-.aee;§rdis2§;i3r;._ disnzlieised the application. Hence this writ
peéitazonf ' _ *
'~*'!»_." Having heaxfi the learned counsel for the parties,
A "ii the pleadings and the records of the labour Conn,
' fiéghat is apparent, is the fact that the petitioner's assertion,
that on 28.2.1983, the date of entry into the services of the
respondent-Management, the letter of appointnzxent of even
M
-5.
date, fixed the basic salary at R3380] – p.m., in the e
of F-22 male, as set out in paragaph 3 of mg: ”
before the labour court, was admitted by ;gs;ggnac:.: & VA
its statement of objections dt. 23.3;”2.e99’e2*a’t
Iii .
other words, the p1eadingsT ._V<:5f…v_the "pe1tiee». f1ieehse; an* L'
admission on the part ef the ree }'s»:3×1::S.e;t1t-.l.?s}I$s::1a_ge;z§e11t that
the basic pay of the into service,
was fixed at Ra.I38()"/« pay in the pay
scale for In fact in the
re-exai3;in4et1AieVIg'v.";V).fIV_ examined as AW-1, he
depose€1A"€.21"at aita. ef joining the seivice, as he
demanded a Vh§.g1 1er1 the management fixed the basaic
-. deposition in re-exanzm ation remam s
-7″ _ V _’,
examination of the order impuged diecioses
” 4 “that Labour Court, did not consider this very relevant
— ‘eglinieeion and the oral testimony of the petitioner. The
“Iebour court having faiied to apply its mind to the znaierial
can record, more appropriately, that on the date of
appeintment the respondent, was granted addifional
fijk
..6..
increments so as to fix the basic pay at Rs.38O/_-m_1i.xi;i;x
occasioned grave injustice to the petitioner. i ii
6. Yet another aspect of the ‘V
the Labour Court is that Clause Bliiofiitéie
sememem dtd. 23.03.1990, EkL’R:i’;»entexed_bei}eeen the
Asssoeiation of eztiployéezgg’ ifviaiiageiiienti, in the
presence of the Labour Divisionxil,
deals with Wage’ the parties agreed
to in respect of those
employees: who to their colleagues in their
mspeefive 2 i”<:.:iategoIVi.e;%i~. i on 31.12. 1989. Although
= _ counsel for the reapondent contends
'ttiia"i-v.g3..,4i1he:*e" existed a Wage anomaly as between the
petitioner senior, in other wozds, the seniofs salary
that of the petitioner, a junior, in terme of
Ciamze of EXR1, the iaasie pay; of the petitioner was
éowrz from R:-3.1.295/~ to Rs.1,215/-, I am not
" hiviiizapiessed by that submission. I say so because clause 21 of
Ex.R1 does not provide for stepping down of the Wages of an
empioyee, junior in tank, but provides for fiment of
UK
..'?-
appmpfiate salary to an employee senior to
Thus 2: complaining senior employee having a__g ti:§vaiice’ aver’ K V’
the fitment of his salary less ._the p’:::fT1T:’_tiipcv_1;.e_i’,’:Vizhne”e
respondent was required to fit an ~.
on the seniority and not mdu;eé’–e,the V. ‘Hfi:}1′” his ‘V
jtuuor.
7. Having regard fi,théi’t.’tIi:ei.’Vpetitioner’s basic
salary on ent_;j§}f ‘_se1 §icé_, a’eRs.38D/ ~ pin, the
basic F3 at the first instance
was – as on 1.1.3990 and the
stepping to Rs.I,215j- hi the guise of
< _apfj1§:=ifi£».e'VC!guse{§x.R1, in my consfiexed opinion, was
. V ' V
A s.,'%1e~-me fallacy in the reasoning of the labour court, in
and cumoxy nature of consideratiml
« uizdeftaken therein without reference to the adnxission of the
: __1ft_?5$p<)3:1cieIt.t ever the {ixatinn (if the basic: pay of the pefitioner
on the daft: of induction into service coupied with the efiect
of Clause 2} of Ex.R} not empowefing the reduction of the
MK
;:_/
.8-
salary fixed for juniors being relevant
impugned is shown to sufibr from _ vb
occasioning gave injusfice to j$e’.ifi:)ne:r
interference.
In the result, the writ is dt. ‘V
5.2.2002 A1mexure–G c:£._t_he iabofititjbun is ‘quasfied. The
Application No.32/90 of the
pcfitionefs basic on 1.1.1990 in
the pmfiiciicd; as a concomitant, is
e11titlec’i”-to jbfifinhefits.
Sd/-gm
Judge