JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY Vs. DASHRATH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide the present writ petition, the petitioner/Management has challenged the award dated 10.08.2001, whereby the petitioner was directed to absorb the workmen named in Annexure 'A' from serial No. 1 to 20 in Group 'D' post and serial No. 21 in Group 'C' post within 60 days of the publication of award and create extraordinary post carrying the pay scale of Group 'D' and Group 'C' post. The petitioner was further directed to grant workmen at Serial No. 1 to 20 wages equal to Group 'D' employees at the minimum of the scale and the workman at Serial No. 21, the wages equal to Group 'C' employee at the minimum of scale with usual allowances per month till the date of their absorption on the regular post.

(2.) The admitted facts of this case are that the workmen named in Annexure 'A' were engaged on muster roll/daily wages basis on their respective posts on the respective date of their employment as shown against their names in the said Annexure. They were paid minimum wages. Those workmen raised an industrial dispute and the following Reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication:-

(3.) The award has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the learned Industrial Tribunal has travelled beyond the Reference and thus the Award is bad in law. It is contended that the issue before the learned Industrial Tribunal was of regularization of the workman and there was no Reference related to the entitlement of the workers for the wages of Group 'C' and 'D' employees on the ground of equal pay for equal work. It is further contended that the learned Industrial Tribunal has itself reached to the conclusion on the basis of evidence that there were no regular or permanent post of labourers, malis and supervisors with the Management, but, despite that, passed the order for the absorption of the workers against non-existing post. It is further contended that the learned tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering creation of jobs for absorption of workers. It is further argued that no evidences were led by any of the parties to prove or disapprove the nature of work of the regular post and of actual work done by workers and thus there is nothing on record to show that respondents were performing the same jobs. On these facts, it is submitted that the award of the learned Tribunal is without jurisdiction and against established principles of law and hence is liable to be set aside. Reliance has been placed on Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi and Ors., 2006 AIR(SC) 1806, State of U.P. vs. Neeraj Awasthi and Ors., 2006 1 SCC 667, M.P. Housing Board and Anr. vs. Manoj Shrivastava, 2006 3 JT 73, State of Maharashtra and Anr. vs. R.S. Bhonde and Ors., 2005 SCC(L&S) 907, State of Karnataka vs. Ors. vs. KGSD Canteen Employees Welfare Association and Ors., 2006 1 JT 84, Sulochan Meshram vs. Jawahar Lal Nehru University in W.P. (C) No. 4329/1997.