MANAGEMENT OF SAMI LABS LIMITED Vs. ORGANISING SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri K. Kasthuri, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner-management and Sri T.S. Anantharam, learned Counsel appearing for respondent-Union. Perused the records. Though matter is listed for preliminary hearing, by consent of learned Advocates appearing for parties it is taken up for final disposal. Petitioner is engaged in the manufacturing of herbal medicinal products including cosmetics, specialty chemicals, etc. having its factory at Peenya Industrial Area, Bangalore. Workmen represented by its Union placed a Charter of Demands on 26-11-2012 before Management and conciliation ended in failure. Hence, matter was referred to Additional Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore for adjudication in A.I.D. No. 07/2014 as per reference dated 31-12-2013, Annexure-B. Pursuant to same, respondents have filed claim statement as per Annexure-C. Writ petitioner-Management who is second party has filed a counter statement as per Annexure-D. On account of pendency of dispute and same having not ended in final disposal, has perforced respondent-Union to file an application seeking for interim relief by invoking Sections 10(4) and 11 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, contending inter alia that as per two statements appended to said application workers similarly placed on par with the members of respondent-Union are being paid more wages/salaries as indicated in Annexure-B and as such, wages that are being paid to them should be extended to the members of respondent-Union as indicated in Annexure-A. Second party i.e., writ petitioner has filed statement of objections denying the averments made in the affidavit in support of application and after considering rival contentions Tribunal by impugned order dated 21-11-2015, Annexure-G, allowed the application in part and directed second party-management to extend the benefits of wage increase to the workmen whose names are shown at Annexure-A within one month from the date of this order. Same is impugned in the present writ petition.

(2.) It is the contention of Sri K. Kasthuri, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner-management that Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application for grant of benefit of wages contending that merely one set of persons who had granted some increase in wages by the management for varied reasons as a ground to grant to all the employees. He would also submit that in the absence of issue being referred to adjudication, Labour Court cannot assume the jurisdiction to enhance the wages of persons who have not got increase and standardise the wages of all the persons on account of alleged discrimination, that too without there being any cogent evidence available on record to establish this fact. He would also submit that in order to entitle the members of respondent-Union for being paid any wages in addition to what has been paid during the pendency of dispute, evidence had to be tendered to prove the alleged discrimination and in the absence of such evidence, they cannot be heard to contend that workmen of respondent-Union had acquired some expertise in discharging same duties as that of workmen who had been granted higher wages. In the absence of such finding recorded by Tribunal with regard to prima facie case, Labour Court would not have jurisdiction to entertain such claim.

(3.) Per contra, Sri T.S. Anantharam, learned Counsel appearing for respondent-Union would support the impugned order and contend that after considering the material placed by the workmen, which was not rebutted by the management, Labour Court has rightly come to a conclusion by directing Management to pay wages equivalent to the wages that was being paid to workmen as indicated in Annexure-B to the workmen whose names are indicated in Annexure-A and submits that there is no error committed by Labour Court calling for interference. Hence, he prays for dismissal of writ petition.