MALEGAON NAGAR PALIKA Vs. VASANT NATHU KALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 126 daily rated casuals appointed by the petitioner - Municipal Council had approached the Labour Court at Nasik by filing individual applications registered as Application (IDA) Nos. 483 to 608 of 1985 under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act) and all these applications have been allowed by the impugned common judgment and order dated 31/12/1994. The applications were made on two grounds, namely, (i) the applicants were performing the same work as assigned to and discharged by the regular employees of the Municipal Council and, therefore, on the basis of "equal pay for equal work" they were entitled for the same monetary benefits as were applicable to the regular employees in the respective grades/jobs and (ii) that the Bhole Pay Commission recommendations as well as the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Reference (IT) No.31 of 1983 on 29/3/1984 and published by the State Government in its Gazette dated 15/11/1984 as well as the Part II Award published by the State Government in its Gazette dated 28/6/1987 was applicable to them. The Labour Court in the impugned award has accepted both the grounds and directed the payment of difference in salaries/wages but has denied separate payment for leave, holidays and weekly off etc.

(2.) The applications were opposed by the Municipal Council by filing Written Statement in each case. Initially it was contended that the applications were not maintainable as the claim for monetary benefits was not based on the existing rights or privileges and while dealing with the applications on merits it was submitted that the nature of work of the applicants was not similar to that of the permanent employees, the applicants were casual labourers and engaged as and when required and they were not covered by the awards passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Reference (IT) No.31 of 1983. So also they were not covered by the Bhole Pay Commission recommendations. The Municipal Council also pointed out that unless the claim was adjudicated upon regarding "equal pay for equal work" and the nature of duties performed by the applicants, the applications could not be entertained. At Exh.23 the Municipal Council specifically prayed before the Labour Court to frame preliminary issue regarding the maintainability of the applications. The applicants had also filed an application at Exh.16 and prayed for appointment of the Commissioner so as to call for additional information under Rule 67-A of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules 1957 or for computing the money value of the benefits of the applicants. This application was allowed by the Labour Court by its order dated 17/3/1993. The Commissioner submitted his report at Exh.18 along with the charts at Exh.21. In the said report he gave the year of joining and not the date of joining of each of the applicants and the calculations of the wages on the basis of the award passed in Reference (IT) No. 31 of 1983. These details have been accepted by the Labour Court inspite of the opposition placed on record by the Municipal Council at Exh.19 by which the Council specifically pointed out that the Commissioner acted without jurisdiction and the court could not have appointed a Commissioner to collect evidence so as to decide the main issue of existing rights which were, in fact, required to be adjudicated upon earlier. On the issue of nature of work and the pre-existing right, the Labour Court held in favour of the applicants on the basis of the following reasoning:-

(3.) Mr. Bukhari the learned counsel for the Municipal Council submitted that the Labour Court committed a gross error in entertaining the applications which were nothing short of execution proceedings and for the same it was necessary that the rights of the applicants to receive the said benefits were already determined either by a competent court or by way of settlement or by way of a Government resolution. When the Council filed Written Statement and disputed the claim made by the applicants and more particularly on the ground that they were not covered by the Bhole Pay Commission recommendations as well as the award passed in Reference (IT) No. 31 of 1983 it was not permissible for the Labour Court to entertain applications and allow the same. As per Mr. Bukhari unless the rights to receive wages/salaries on par with the regular employees on the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" was adjudicated upon by a competent forum, the Labour Court could not have, as an ancillary issue, decided the said issue by the impugned judgment. In support of these contentions Mr. Bukhari has placed reliance on the decision of this court (DB) in the case of Yadunathsing Gendasingh Rathor vs. Tirora Municipal Council and ors. [1977 Mh.L.J. 556] and the following decisions of the Apex Court: