V SREENIVASA RAO Vs. AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners claim that they worked in different capacities with the 2nd respondent, till they retired under Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) in the year 2005. Stating that the wages paid to them for several years, up to the date of their retirement, were not in accordance with the provisions of the working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955, (for short "the Act"), they filed an application under Section 17 (1) of the Act, before the 1st respondent. They claim different amounts, ranging from 5,62,881/- by the 4th petitioner, to Rs. 12,95,396/- by the 12th petitioner, as difference of wages. Reference was made to the Wage Board awards passed by Justice Palekar, Justice Bachawat and Justice Manisana. The individual claims, numbered as W. J. Nos. 1 to 13 of 2005, were clubbed. The 1st respondent opposed the claims of the petitioners, on several grounds. Through a common order, dated 3. 3. 2008, the 1st respondent rejected the claims, for want of jurisdiction. The same is challenged in this writ petition.

(2.) SRI S. Ravindranath, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the entitlement of the petitioners is referable to the statutory awards, which have become final, and the 1st respondent was not justified in taking the view that it does not have jurisdiction to entertain the claims. He contends that there was no necessity for the petitioners, to avail the remedy under section 17 (2) of the Act.

(3.) SRI A. Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, who took notice at the stage of admission, contends that once the petitioners have retired under VRS, it is not open to them, to claim the alleged arrears of salaries. He contends that an application under Section 17 (1) of the Act can be maintained, only when the claim of an employee was adjudicated in an earlier set of proceedings, or where there is no dispute about it.