SHANKAR BALU PISHTE Vs. ARVIND PROCESSORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 227 of the Constitution arises from the order dated June 27, 1984 passed by the learned Labour Judge, Kolhapur holding camp at Ichalkaranji in I. D. A. Application No. 91 of 1982.

(2.) THE relevant facts giving rise to the petition are as under: three employees, including petitioner No. 2 Sukumar Balwant Birnale preferred I. D. A. Application Nos. 90, 91 and 92 of 1982 before the Labour Court at Kolhapur under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming certain amount of wages in accordance with certain settlements arrived at between the union representing the employees and the first respondent partnership firm. Out of those three employees, petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 did not press their petitions and, therefore, we are now concerned only with Petitioner No. 2-Sukumar balwant Birnale who shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the petitioner-employee'. It is the case of the petitioner-employee that he was employed by the first respondent on and from 29. 7. 1979 on payment of Rs. 7/- per day as wages. According to him, there was an agreement arrived at in reference (IC) No. 9 of 1968 between the employer and Rashtriya Processing Kamgar Union, ichalkaranji and he was entitled to wages according to the said settlement. It was also his case in his application under Section 33-C (2) that the first respondent-employer was also duty bound to give him the benefits flowing from : settlements arrived at after the Award made in Reference (IC) No. 9 of 1968. His claim was resisted by the first respondent-employer on the ground that award made in Reference (IC) No. 9 of 1968 was in terms, of settlement dated 30th April, 1971 and 29th July, 1971 when the petitioner-employee was not even their employee and he was not even governed by the subsequent settlements. The employer further contended that by the Award in reference (IC) No. 9 of 1968, the basic wage or wage scales or consolidated wages were fixed differently for various categories of employees and by subsequent Awards passed in terms of settlement dated 17. 6. 1971 some specific employees were covered who had put in more than one years continuous service and had been made permanent but the name of the petitioner-employee did not appear in the subsequent settlements. The application was also resisted on the ground that the same was vague. The parties aid not adduce oral evidence before the Labour Court but relied upon documents and arguments advanced in support of their respective contentions.

(3.) ON perusal of the relevant documents and on consideration of the arguments advanced before him, the learned Labour Judge came to the conclusion by his impugned order that the petitioner-employee was not covered by any of the settlements referred to and relied upon by him and, therefore, his application under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act must fail. He accordingly rejected the petitioner-employee's application by the impugned order. Hence the petitioner- employee invoked the supervisory writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.