KRISHNA P Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners contend that they were 'D' Group employees in the erstwhile City Municipal Council of Dasarahalli (CMC). Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were employed as electricians in the CMC vide resolution dated 03.05.1997, which was passed by the Chairman of the CMC. It is also contended by the petitioners that they were appointed against clear vacancies in the CMC.

(2.) It is an admitted fact that Dasarahalli CMC was brought under the jurisdiction of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) in the year 2007. The petitioners contend that some of the employees who were doing similar work made a representation seeking equal pay to equal work and some of such employees services were regularised by the BBMP. It is also contended that some of the employees similarly situated to the petitioners approached this Court in W.P.Nos.7289-7291/2011 and connected matters. This Court by order dated 25.11.2011 observed that there was no material particulars pertaining to the services of the petitioners as employees of the erstwhile CMC, Dasarahalli and therefore it is not possible to accept that all the petitioners would be entitled for the benefit of equal pay for equal work, unless their credence are established. However, the respondent -BBMP was directed to reconsider the case of each of the petitioners individually and after ascertaining whether the petitioners would indeed be entitled to claim the benefit of 'equal pay for equal work', the same ought to be given to them including such arrears that they may be entitled to, from the date that CMC, Dasarahalli merged with the BBMP and to extend this benefit at the earliest. The request for regularisation was held to be a matter which requires to be decided by the respondents with reference to the law of the land and therefore, case for regularisation was also directed to be addressed by the respondents.

(3.) It is the contention of the petitioners that from 29.01.2002 they are refused work and therefore the petitioners approached the Government seeking reference. Accordingly, reference was made to the Labour Court and the impugned order has been passed rejecting the reference. Being aggrieved, the petitioners are before this Court.