IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK G.NIJAGANNAVAR C.C.C. No.1340/2018 (CIVIL) BETWEEN:
THE WORKMEN OF B.E.M.L. CANTEEN, REPRESENTED BY B.E.M.L. CANTEEN, KARMIKARA SANGHA (R), MYSORE COMPLEX, NO.LIG-86, GROUP-1, K.H.B.COLONY, HOOTAGALLI, BELAWADI POST, MYSORE – 570 018.
REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI H.S. SATHISH, AGED 45 YEARS. ... COMPLAINANT (BY SRI K. SUBBA RAO, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI NAIK V.S., ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI SURESH M. VASTRAD EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, B.E.M.L. LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS BHARAT EARTH MOVERS LTD.,) MYSORE COMPLEX, BELAWDI POST, MYSORE – 571 186. ... ACCUSED (BY SRI K.S. BHEEMAIAH, ADVOCATE) THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, BY THE COMPLAINANT, WHEREIN HE PRAYS THAT THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT BE PLEASED TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AND PUNISH THE ACCUSED FOR HAVING DELIBERATELY DISOBEYED THE ORDER DATED 12.03.2016 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.A.NO.1980/2015 (L-RES) C/W W.A.NO.2179/2010 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND ORDER DATED 22.03.2018 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.36848/2016 (L-RES) VIDE ANNEXURE-F.
THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Complainant is the Workmen of B.E.M.L. Canteen, represented by B.E.M.L. Canteen Karmikara Sangha. The grievance of complainant is that the direction issued by this Court in order dated 12th March, 2015, in W.A.No.1980/2010 connected with W.A.No.2179/2010 vide Annexure – D has not been complied with.
2. We have heard learned senior counsel, Sri K.Subba Rao, appearing for the complainant and learned counsel, Sri K.S. Bheemaiah, appearing for the accused and perused the material on record.
3. Briefly stated, the facts are that in Reference No.107/2001 an award was passed on 22/04/2003 holding that the workmen of the 1st party (complainant herein), are entitled to wage benefits and other allowances including leave, overtime and welfare benefits on par with permanent employees doing unskilled work from the date of order of reference. Further, a direction was issued to the effect that they are entitled to 50% of arrears of difference in the salaries etc., from the date of order of reference till the date of award. Being aggrieved by the said award, the accused/company M/s.Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “BEML.”) represented by its authorised representative filed W.P.No.35453/2003. The said writ petition was disposed off by a learned single Judge of this Court in the following terms:
“O R D E R i. Writ petition is partly allowed.
ii. The impugned award dated 22.04.2003 in reference No.107/2001 passed by the Industrial Tribunal at Mysore declaring that the workers engaged in the canteen are permanent workmen of the petitioner establishment is hereby set aside.
iii. The workers engaged in the canteen of the petitioner establishment are entitled for wage benefits and other allowances including leave and welfare benefits on par with permanent employees doing unskilled work with effect from 10.05.2001 up to 31.03.2010.
Thereafter the workmen in canteen are entitled for regular salaries and allowances.
iv. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the canteen employees of the petitioner establishment are entitled for 40% of difference in arrears of salaries, emoluments and etc.
Ordered accordingly.”
As against the said order, BEML preferred W.A.No.1980/2010 connected with W.A.No.2179/2010. Both the writ appeals were heard by the Division Bench of this Court and by judgment dated 12/03/2015, the Division Bench modified the order of the learned single Judge in certain respects and at the same time, the order of the learned single Judge was confirmed in other respects and the appeals were disposed off. Subsequently, BEML preferred S.L.P.Nos.17778-17779/2015 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed by order dated 10/08/2015. Thereafter, the complainant herein preferred W.P.No.36848/2016, which was disposed off on 22/03/2018. Subsequently, this contempt petition has been preferred.
4. On hearing learned senior counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for the accused with reference to statement of objections, we find that the award passed by the Labour Court was to the effect that the employees of the complainant/Association were the permanent workmen of the accused and were entitled to wage benefits and all other benefits. But the same was set aside by the learned single Judge and in the alternative, learned single Judge directed that the employees ought to be treated on par with permanent employees doing unskilled work with effect from 10/05/2001 to 31/03/2010. Thereafter, the workmen in the canteen were to be entitled for regular salaries and allowances. That they are entitled to 40% of difference in arrears of salaries, emoluments and etc. In the writ appeals, the Division Bench has held that the employees cannot be construed to be workmen of canteen contractors, but they are the employees of BEML and were appointed to work in the canteen at Mysuru. The Division Bench also opined that learned single Judge had not committed any error in holding that the respondent- Union has to prove its case to claim wages on par with the wages of unskilled workers of BEML. In the circumstances, the Division Bench held that the workers are entitled to be considered as permanent workers of BEML and are also entitled for all consequential benefits including the right to claim the status of permanent workmen of BEML on par with unskilled workmen. However, the Division Bench reduced the arrears of salaries and emoluments to be paid to the workmen to 35%.
5. On a reading of the same, we find that the Division Bench has held that they have to be considered as permanent workmen of BEML and are entitled to consequential benefits including the right to claim the status of permanent workmen of BMEL on par with unskilled workmen. The Division Bench has not set aside the order of the learned single Judge, wherein it was held that the workmen are not to be treated as permanent workmen of the establishment as had been held by the Labour Court in its award. What emerges is that the Division Bench has merely opined that the workmen are entitled to parity in salaries and benefits and they have a right to claim status of being the permanent workmen, but the order of the learned single Judge was not interfered with in any manner except moulding of the relief to the aforesaid extent. The Division Bench’s judgment was sustained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In W.P.No.36848/2016 filed by the complainant herein, learned single Judge has expressed its disinclination to interfere in the matter.
6. Learned senior counsel submits that as per Annexures – G to N, the employees are treated as employees of the contractor and not as permanent employees of the establishment. He further submits that the employees are not being paid annual increments and other benefits, whereas the contention of the learned counsel for the accused is that the salaries which are being paid to unskilled employees are being paid to the workmen as directed by the learned single Judge and also by the Division Bench of this Court. He further submits that if there is any further grievance remaining, the workmen would have to approach the Labour Court and seek relief under Section 33(C) of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 (“the Act” for short).
7. We find considerable force in the submission of learned counsel for the accused. This contempt petition is not intended to determine any further status that the employees are claiming on the basis of the orders passed by this Court. The monetary reliefs and other consequential benefits which the workers claim that they are entitled to have to be sought for before the appropriate forum i.e., by filing the proceeding under Section 33(C) of the Act.
8. In the circumstances, we find it appropriate to drop the contempt proceedings as we are satisfied that the accused has paid the salaries to the workmen in accordance with the direction issued by this Court. If the workmen or complainants are still dissatisfied or have got any grievance with regard to payment or if there is any arrears of amount or benefits to be granted to the workmen, liberty is reserved to them to seek the same in accordance with law and particularly having regard to Section 33(C) of the Act.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE S*