- (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 Association, 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 Assistants on par with Sri Ganganna, appointed also in 1978, with effect from their date of employment itself 1) D. R. 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 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 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 Assistants 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 offered posts as Trainee-Operators as they were found not suitable for the post of Plant Assistants. However, thereafter the appellants 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 attached 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 appellants submitted that the High Court erred in ignoring the evidence adduced before the Tribunal and the findings recorded by the Tribunal on facts after consideration of the evidence that the work done by the Trainee-Operators and that of the Plant Assistants is 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.;