Y B SIDDARAMU Vs. MYSORE SUGAR COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in all these three petitions are employees under the respondent. Company working in different capacities. Admittedly, they have been appointed in the service of the respondent company subsequent to 1-1-1994 and prior to 8-10-1996. It is the case of petitioners that the respondent company by an office order dated 8-10-1996 voluntarily extended the benefit of wage increase to all its employees including the petitioners herein pursuant to the recommendation of 3rd tripartite wage committee for sugar industries. Thereafter, for the first time in 2006 December, the respondent issued a Notice to some of the petitioners on the basis that the wage increase pursuant to recommendation of third tripartite committee for sugar industries is for the employees who were on the role of the first respondent company as on 1-1-1994 and not for those who are appointed subsequently Since these employees have been appointed to the respective post subsequent to 1-1-1994, the said benefit does not enure to their benefit, whatever benefit extended to petitioners under office Order dated 8-10-1996 is without basis, the same is required to be withdrawn. In the same notice there was also an order to recover the increased wages that was paid to the petitioners pursuant to the wage revision till the date of the notices. However, in respect of some petitioners no notice was issued straightaway recovery was initiated. The petitioners in all these three petitions have come up in these writ petitions challenging the notice and recovery initiated by the respondent.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioners that, the respondent itself voluntarily extended the benefit of wage increase pursuant to recommendation of third tripartite committee of sugar industeries in the year 1996, the said benefit was extended to them from 1996 till 2006 without any interruption. After a period of 10 years now there is an attempt by the respondent to withdraw the same without hearing the petitioners in this behalf. According to the petitioners the said increase in wage is not given to them pursuant to misrepresentation or fraud committed by them in securing the said benefit from the respondent. On the contrary it is the respondent itself by its own order extended the said benefit for the petitioners in the year 1996 and continued to pay the excess wages till 2006.

(3.) The recommendation of the third tripartite committee for sugar industries was only in respect of those employees who were already in service of sugar industry on 1-1-1994 and the said recommendation was not intended to be extended to those who have joined the services subsequent to 1-1-1994. According to the petitioners in all the three writ petitions haying joined the services subsequent to 1-1-1984 and prior to 1-9-1996 and the extension of the benefit of wage increase to the petitioners is only by a mistake though they were not entitled to the said, benefit as per the recommendations of the third tripartite committee. It is the case of the petitioners that, even if the respondent has extended the benefit by mistake having allowed them to take the benefit of enhanced wage for a period of 10 years, they cannot now seek recovery of the same. Even if the said, wage is required to be discontinued the same can be discontinued only after giving proper notice and not by passing recovery order unilaterally. According to the petitioners. the notices which are produced as Annexures in all the three writ petitions though they are termed as notices, in effect they are in the nature of recovery order and the same is illegal, as the said order is passed without giving any opportunity of being heard. Under such circumstances, same is required to be quashed.