Allowed

Bel Karmika Sangham, Rep byits General Secretary, v. Bharat Electronics Ltd.

Telangana HC20 Aug 2011WP/11002/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, an employees association alleging pay disparity, sought Industrial Tribunal reference. The court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order for being without reasons and holding the enquiry proceedings procedure imcompetent. Directed Relinquishment of order to be passed within three months considering party contentions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; Respondent No.3 directed to pass fresh orders after taking into account contentions of all parties within three months from date of receipt of this order.

Bel Karmika Sangham, Rep byits General Secretary… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.11002 of 2011

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner is an association of employees of Bharat Electronics Limited at its Machilipatnam Branch. Alleging that there is disparity of pay among the employees of the organisation working at different places, the petitioner approached respondent No.3 with a prayer to refer the matter to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. Initially, conciliation was undertaken and on reporting that the conciliation failed, respondent No.1 passed an order, dated 28.04.2010, refusing to accede to the request of the petitioner. It was mentioned that the grant of a particular pay scale at the time of induction is a policy and administrative matter and that it cannot constitute the subject matter for the industrial dispute. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the same.

¶5

The petitioner contends that different pay scales are being adopted for the employees who are discharging the same duties, but at different places. It is stated that the approach of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the context of sanction of pay scales is illegal and with a view to resolve the same, it has approached respondent No.3 to make a reference to the Industrial Tribunal.

¶6

On behalf of the respondents, it is contended that the so-called dispute is covered by the settlements that were arrived at, on earlier occasions.

¶7

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶8

There is a serious dispute between the petitioner on the one hand and respondent Nos.1 and 2 on the other as to the pay

¶9

scales to be allowed to certain categories of employees. While the petitioner complains disparity, the respondents pleaded that the matter was already resolved through settlements. The effort made by the Conciliation Officer to resolve the dispute did not fructify. Thereby, the matter landed before respondent No.3.

¶10

The resolution of disputes through Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal is always treated as proper mechanism. Where, however, such a facility is denied, the order must be supported by relevant and cogent reasons. Except stating that the grant of a particular pay scale is a policy and administrative matter, respondent No.3 did not take the trouble of referring to the contentions of the parties concerned. Thwarting the effort of a Trade Union to get the matter resolved through adjudication by an Industrial Tribunal at the threshold needs thorough discussion and assignment of valid reasons.

¶11

On the short ground that the impugned order is bereft of any reasons, and that it has not referred to the contentions of the respective parties, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Respondent No.3 is directed to pass fresh orders after taking into account, the contentions that may be urged by the petitioner on the one hand and respondent Nos.1 and 2 on the other, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶12

Since the writ petition is allowed, it is needless to mention that the interim order passed by this Court stands dissolved. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶13

_____________________

¶14

L.NARASIMHA

¶15

REDDY,J Dt:20.08.2011

¶16

Note: Issue cc in one week. (B/o) kdl

Bel Karmika Sangham, Rep byits General Secretary, v. Bharat Electronics Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bel Karmika Sangham, Rep byits General Secretary, v. Bharat Electronics Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.M.Pushpalatha, Vs Government of a.P., rep.by its Principal Secretary

Nagalla Ramanaiah Vs Nagalla Krishna

Nagalla Ramanaiah Vs Nagalla Venkata Krishna

Mohd. Omar Farooq Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

K.Seshadri Naidu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Rachapudi Peda Chinnaiah Vs Adult Education Welfare Society