TATA COFFEE LTD Vs. MYLARAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Management has called in question award dated November 29, 2006 passed by the Labour Court, Chickmagalur in I.D.R. No. 65/2003 Vide Annexure-A, whereunder dispute raised by workman has been partly allowed and management has been directed to pay 50% wages during the relevant period i.e., from August 11, 2001 to October 2, 2001. Heard Sri. P.D. Vishwanath, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner. Though respondents are served and are represented by learned Counsel, none appears. This writ petition being of the year 2007 and rule having been issued on August 18, 2008 writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) The respondent-workmen raised a dispute through Labour Union before the Conciliation Officer and the appropriate Government on receipt of report from Labour Officer has by its order dated December 30, 2002 referred the dispute for adjudication i.e., as to whether workmen 1 to 33 have been refused employment from August 11, 2001 to October 2, 2001. On such reference being made claimants filed the claim petitions seeking for payment of full wages to the workman for the period from August 11, 2001 to October 2, 2001. The management appeared and filed its statement of objections denying averments made in the petition. On behalf of the workmen one witness was examined and documents W-1 to W-47 were marked on behalf of the management. One witness was examined as M.W. 1 and documents M1 to M8 were marked. After considering the contentions raised in the petition Labour Court held that first party-workmen were working as temporary workers in the estate of the petitioner. It also held that workmen are entitled for 50% wages for the period August 11, 2001 to October 2, 2001.

(3.) It is the contention of Mr. Vishwanath, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner that Labour Court having given a finding that workmen are temporary worker it ought not to have awarded wages for the period from August 11, 2001 to October 2, 2001, inasmuch as workmen have never worked in the petitioner estate during this period and they are not entitled to any wages on the principles of "No work No pay." He would also contend that there is no pleading with regard to the fact that workmen were not gainfully employed during the period and in the absence of such material, Labour Court committed an error in awarding wages for the period from August 8, 2001 to October 2, 2001. In support of his submission he relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agarwal and Another, 2007 2 SCC 433 .