The Mysore Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Workmen of Mysore Paper Mills Ltd. & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 1146 of 1999
Petitioner: The Mysore Paper Mills Ltd.
Respondent: Workmen of Mysore Paper Mills Ltd. & Anr.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 1146 of 1999
Judges: S. RAJENDRA BABU & SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 03, 2001
Head Note:
LABOUR & INDUSTRIAL LAWS
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Section 10 – Reference – Award – Selection for post of Plant Assistants -8 appointed, 23 more offered posts of trainee-opera-tors – Services of these trainee-operators declared to be reckoned as part of service for probation as Plant Assistants – If such trainee-operators entitled to get benefits of pay fixa-tion, protection of salary and seniority etc., at par with Plant Assistants. Held, the Tribunal has rightly concluded that two posts were different and different pay scales were justified. High Court’s orders, setting aside the Award held, improper.
Held:
Though they had not been selected as Plant Assistants but as trainee-operators and it has been shown to the satisfaction of the Industrial Tribunal that the nature of work carried on by them being different and therefore the different pay scales extended to them are justified, it could not be upset by the High Court merely on the basis of certain indulgence shown to the employees in respect of the manner in which their services should be treated. The orders made by the appellant were to accommodate them as trainee-operators and certain scales of pay were extended to them. If that is so, having accepted those posts and worked on those posts for such a long time, it is not open to them to have contended that they are entitled to higher emoluments thereafter. Only when the services were treated as that of Plant Assistants and from the date they were Plant Assistants they have been given to benefits as are attributable to the Plant Assistants. (Para 4)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. An industrial dispute was referred to the consideration of the Industrial Tribunal on the following question :
“MPM Bhadravati, represented by Mysore Paper Mills Staff Associa-tion, Bhadravati, justified in demanding that the following workmen should be treated and get, the consequential benefits of pay fixation protection of salary, seniority etc. as Plant Assis-tants on par with Sri Ganganna, appointed also in 1978, with effect from their date of employment itself?
SRIYUTHS:
1) Dr. Vittal Rao
2) R. Rafia Saheb
3) K.M. Basavaraj
4) L.G. Basavana Gowda
5) D. Panchappa
6) R. Krishnamurthy
7) Y. Ashok Kumar
8) Nayaz Ahmed
9) B.V. Murthy
10) S.G. Thimma Reddy
11) Shivalinge Gowda
12) N.H. Honnagangappa
13) G.K. Srinatha
14) P.Ramananda
15) T. Chandrashekhara
16) M. Malleshappa
17) J.G. Sigamani
18) B.T. Chandrashekara
19) T.P. Prabakara and
20) B.M. Daneshappa
If not, to what relief(s) they are entitled to?”
2. The Industrial Tribunal on consideration of the evidence held that the employees in respect of whom the dispute was referred to are trainee-operators whose main work is assisting calendar men, disgester men, helpers to turners, fitters etc. and they will not have any supervisory work. The Tribunal having considered the evidence adduced on behalf of the trainee-operators to show that the nature of the work is identical to that of the Plant Assis-tants came to the conclusion that the two posts being different, different pay scales are justified in the circumstances. On a writ petition being filed against the said Award the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion after noticing that of the 94 candidates interviewed by the Selection Committee, 8 were found suitable for appointment as Plant Assistants while 23 were of-fered posts as trainee-operators as they were found not suitable for the post of Plant Assistants. However, thereafter the appell-ant having declared that services of the trainee-operators would be reckoned as part of service for probation as Plant Assistants, it must follow necessarily that whatever benefits that are at-tached to the Plant Assistants should be given to them when they are deemed to have discharged the function of Plant Assistants. On that basis, set aside the Award made by the Industrial Tribunal and extended benefits as sought for by the employees. On appeal to Division Bench, the learned Single Judge’s order was affirmed. Hence, this appeal in special leave.
3. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court erred in ignoring the evidence adduced before the Tribunal and the findings recorded by the Tribunal on facts after consid-eration of the evidence that the work done by the trainee-operators and that of the Plant Assistants is done different and therefore, the High Court was not justified in setting aside the Award made by the Industrial Tribunal. Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that inasmuch as there is no specific material before the Industrial Tribunal as to the nature of the work discharged by the trainee-operators and the material placed before it was not sufficient to come to the conclusion one way or the other, the view taken by the High Court based on the orders issued by the appellant is justified.
4. Before the Industrial Tribunal evidence was adduced to show that 20 persons were appointed as Plant Assistants during August, 1978 and their pay had to be revised in the grade of 285-558 right from the date of appointment would not be sustainable. In the circumstances, though they had not been selected as Plant Assistant but as trainee-operators and it has been shown to the satisfaction of the Industrial Tribunal that the nature of work carried on by them being different to which we have adverted to earlier, and therefore the different pay scales extended to them are justified, it could not be upset by the High Court merely on the basis of certain indulgence shown to the employees in respect of the manner in which their services should be treated. The orders made by the appellant were to accommodate them as trainee-operators and certain scales of pay were extended to them. If that is so, having accepted those posts and worked on those posts for such a long time, it is not open to them to have contended that they are entitled to higher emoluments thereafter. Only when the services were treated as that of Plant Assistants and from the date they were Plant Assistants they have been given to benefits as are attributable to the Plant Assistants. In that view of the matter we do not see any justification for the High Court to have interfered with the Award made by the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, we set aside the orders made by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court and restore that of the Industrial Tribunal. The appeal is, therefore, al-lowed. However, in the circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs.
1. An industrial dispute was referred to the consideration of the Industrial Tribunal on the following question :
“MPM Bhadravati, represented by Mysore Paper Mills Staff Associa-tion, Bhadravati, justified in demanding that the following workmen should be treated and get, the consequential benefits of pay fixation protection of salary, seniority etc. as Plant Assis-tants on par with Sri Ganganna, appointed also in 1978, with effect from their date of employment itself?
SRIYUTHS:
1) Dr. Vittal Rao
2) R. Rafia Saheb
3) K.M. Basavaraj
4) L.G. Basavana Gowda
5) D. Panchappa
6) R. Krishnamurthy
7) Y. Ashok Kumar
8) Nayaz Ahmed
9) B.V. Murthy
10) S.G. Thimma Reddy
11) Shivalinge Gowda
12) N.H. Honnagangappa
13) G.K. Srinatha
14) P.Ramananda
15) T. Chandrashekhara
16) M. Malleshappa
17) J.G. Sigamani
18) B.T. Chandrashekara
19) T.P. Prabakara and
20) B.M. Daneshappa
If not, to what relief(s) they are entitled to?”
2. The Industrial Tribunal on consideration of the evidence held that the employees in respect of whom the dispute was referred to are trainee-operators whose main work is assisting calendar men, disgester men, helpers to turners, fitters etc. and they will not have any supervisory work. The Tribunal having considered the evidence adduced on behalf of the trainee-operators to show that the nature of the work is identical to that of the Plant Assis-tants came to the conclusion that the two posts being different, different pay scales are justified in the circumstances. On a writ petition being filed against the said Award the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion after noticing that of the 94 candidates interviewed by the Selection Committee, 8 were found suitable for appointment as Plant Assistants while 23 were of-fered posts as trainee-operators as they were found not suitable for the post of Plant Assistants. However, thereafter the appell-ant having declared that services of the trainee-operators would be reckoned as part of service for probation as Plant Assistants, it must follow necessarily that whatever benefits that are at-tached to the Plant Assistants should be given to them when they are deemed to have discharged the function of Plant Assistants. On that basis, set aside the Award made by the Industrial Tribunal and extended benefits as sought for by the employees. On appeal to Division Bench, the learned Single Judge’s order was affirmed. Hence, this appeal in special leave.
3. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court erred in ignoring the evidence adduced before the Tribunal and the findings recorded by the Tribunal on facts after consid-eration of the evidence that the work done by the trainee-operators and that of the Plant Assistants is done different and therefore, the High Court was not justified in setting aside the Award made by the Industrial Tribunal. Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that inasmuch as there is no specific material before the Industrial Tribunal as to the nature of the work discharged by the trainee-operators and the material placed before it was not sufficient to come to the conclusion one way or the other, the view taken by the High Court based on the orders issued by the appellant is justified.
4. Before the Industrial Tribunal evidence was adduced to show that 20 persons were appointed as Plant Assistants during August, 1978 and their pay had to be revised in the grade of 285-558 right from the date of appointment would not be sustainable. In the circumstances, though they had not been selected as Plant Assistant but as trainee-operators and it has been shown to the satisfaction of the Industrial Tribunal that the nature of work carried on by them being different to which we have adverted to earlier, and therefore the different pay scales extended to them are justified, it could not be upset by the High Court merely on the basis of certain indulgence shown to the employees in respect of the manner in which their services should be treated. The orders made by the appellant were to accommodate them as trainee-operators and certain scales of pay were extended to them. If that is so, having accepted those posts and worked on those posts for such a long time, it is not open to them to have contended that they are entitled to higher emoluments thereafter. Only when the services were treated as that of Plant Assistants and from the date they were Plant Assistants they have been given to benefits as are attributable to the Plant Assistants. In that view of the matter we do not see any justification for the High Court to have interfered with the Award made by the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, we set aside the orders made by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court and restore that of the Industrial Tribunal. The appeal is, therefore, al-lowed. However, in the circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs.
