LAWS(ORI)-1998-11-13

SUPAD HALDAR Vs. ORISSA SMALL INDUSTRIES

Decided On November 18, 1998
Supad Haldar Appellant
V/S
ORISSA SMALL INDUSTRIES Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, employees of Orissa Timber and Engineering Works, Sunabeda, a unit under the management of Orissa Small Industries Corporation Limited, by filing the present writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India have prayed, inter alia, for the following reliefs : 'xxx it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to issue a Rule Nisi in the nature of writ of mandamus/certiorati commanding the opposite party to pay the arrear wages of the petitioners, w.e.f. 1.1.1974 as per the revised Pay Rules, 1974 and w.e.f. 1.1.1981 to 24.9.1984 as per the revised Pay Rules, 1981;'

(2.) SHORTLY stated the case of the petitioners is that Orissa Small Industries Corporation Limited, a wholly Government owned company, is an instrumentality of State and thus a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners joined the Rehabilitation Industries which was initially a unit under the management of the Orissa Agro Industries Corporation Limited. The said unit subsequently was re -named as Orissa Timber and Engineering Works and its management was transferred to Orissa Small Industries Corporation Limited by Government Resolution dated 1.7.1974. Government of Orissa revised the pay scales of all its employees with effect from 1.1.1974 as per Finance Department Notification No. 652/1974 dated 2.4.1974. The opposite party -Corporation implemented the revised pay scales and extended the benefit to all its employees from 1.1.1974 except to the employees of the Orissa Timber and Engineering Works. So, the employees made a representation to the authorities of the Corporation to extend the benefit of revised wages to them but the latter paid a deaf ear. State Government again revised the pay scales of its employees with effect from 1.1.1981 and consequently the opposite party Corporation implemented the revised pay scales to all the employees from the said date, but in the case of the employees of Orissa Timber and Engineering Works it extended the benefit from 25.9.1984 and not from 1.1.1981. Their further case is that employees of General Engineering and Scientific Works, Berhampur, which is one of the units under the management of the opposite party -Corporation were not given the benefit of revised pay scales. So, they approached the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and upon hearing the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar passed an award directing the management of the Corporation to extend the financial benefit as per the Revised Pay Rules of 1974. Aggrieved by the award the authorities of the Corporation approached this Court by filing a number of writ petitions where the award passed by the Labour Court was affirmed. In the above back drop, the petitioners 'demanded to extend similar benefits to them with effect from 1.1.1974. The third pay revision was made and given effect to by the State Government from 1.1.1985 and the opposite party -Corporation has implemented and given the benefit thereof to all its employees including the petitioners. In the circumstances, the grievance of the petitioners is that since their pay scales have been revised as per the third revision, Revised Pay Rules, 1974 and 1981 should be given effect to and benefit thereof should be extended to them as had been given to the employees of other units of the opposite party -Corporation.

(3.) WHILE not disputing the factual position as stated above, opposite party -Corporation has challenged the petitioners' claim on two grounds; namely : (i) That pursuant to the agreement between the opposite party - Corporation and the employees of the unit in question namely the Orissa Timber and Engineering Works, Sunabeda, 1971 Pay Rules has been given effect to from 1.1.1977 and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to go back from the agreement and claim benefits from 1.1.1974; (ii) That there has been long delay in filing writ application and on that ground the petitioners are not entitled to the relief as sought for; - - - -