IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 26TH MAGHA 1931 WA.No. 425 of 2006() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.16356/2004 DATED 07/12/2005 .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 IN THE WRIT PETITION ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. REHABILITATION PLANTATION STAFF UNION, KULATHUPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY VIJAYAKUMAR.C., S/O.CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, AGED 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT SREE LEKSHMY, THOLICODU P.O., PUNALUR. 2. T.G. SIVASANKARAN NAIR, S/O. N.GOPALAN NAIR, AGED 49 YEARS, ELECTRICIAN, L.C.FACTORY, REHABILITATION PLANTATION LTD., KULATHUPUZHA, RESIDING AT THEKKETHIL PUTHENVEEDU, PRAKKANAM P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. G. VENUKUTTAN PILLAI, S/O.R.P.GOPALA PILLAI, PLUMBER, L.C.FACTORY, REHABILITATION PLANTATION LTD., KULATHUPUZHA, RESIDING AT EDATHITTAVEEDU, PADU NORTH, KARUNAGAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.RAJENDRAN NAIR, SENIOR ADVOCATE SMT.REKHA VASUDEVAN SMT.VINEETHA B. SRI.M.R.HARIRAJ RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER RESPONDENT IN THE WRIT PETITION: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. REHABILITATION PLANTATION LIMITED, PUNALUR, REPRESENTED BY THE COMPANY SECRETARY. 2. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM. R1 BY MR.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. MR.RONY J.PALLATH, SMT.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P., MR.SAJI VARGHESE. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J ------------------------------------- W.A No.425 OF 2006 -------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of February 2010 JUDGMENT K.Balakrishnan Nair, J Respondents 2 to 4 in the writ petition are the appellants. 1st respondent herein was the writ petitioner. The brief facts of the case are as follows. 1st respondent is a public sector company. Among other things, it is running a Latex Centrifuge Factory at Kulathupuzha. Appellants 2 and 3 were respectively Electrician and Plumber working in that factory. When applications were invited for those posts along with the posts of Suprervisor(Factory) and Mechanic(Factory), the pay scales of Electrician and Plumber were shown as higher to that of Supervisor(Factory). Appellants 2 and 3 were appointed in 1984. After some time, the pay scales of the Supervisor(Factory) was revised upwards and it was placed on a step higher when compared to the scale of pay of Electrician and Plumber. The workmen including appellants 2 and 3 through their union, the 1st appellant raised a claim for maintaining their relative advantage in the pay scale with reference to the pay scale of the Supervisor W.A No.425 OF 2006 Page numbers (Factory). The management having denied that request, the matter was taken up before the Conciliation Officer. Conciliation failed and the Government referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Kollam. Tribunal after hearing both sides passed Ext.P2 award dated 12/11/2003 in I.D No.7/1998. It was ordered to grant appellants 2 and 3 the scale of pay on par with Supervisors under the 1st respondent with effect from 01/01/1986 and also arrears of factory allowances at the rate of Rs.50/- from November 1985 to June 1990. Feeling aggrieved by the said award 1st respondent preferred this writ petition. The learned single judge after hearing both sides allowed the same and quashed Ext.P2. The appellant feeling aggrieved by the said judgment has preferred this writ appeal. 2. We heard the learned counsel on both sides. Learned counsel for the appellant took us through the judgment in appeal and also Ext.P2 award of the Labour Court. Reference was also made to Annexure A11 document obtained from the 1st respondent under the Right to Information Act. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that based on the evidence tendered before the Industrial Tribunal, the Tribunal has arrived at a finding that the appellants 2 and 3 are entitled to get pay on par with Supervisors. The said finding has been unsettled without any reference to the evidence or materials on record. The learned W.A No.425 OF 2006 Page numbers counsel for the appellant also relying on Annexure A11 pointed out that, at some stage, the Government itself noticed the anomaly in the pay scale and tentatively decided to upgrade the scale of pay of Electrician and Plumber. But because of the pendency of the industrial dispute, the matter was not pursued. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent on the other hand supported the judgment under appeal. He also pointed out that it is evident from Annexure A11 that though in 1987 the Government mooted the proposal to revise the salary of Plumber and Electrician upwards, the same was dropped by a subsequent decision taken in 1992. 3. We considered the rival submissions made at the Bar and also perused the materials on record. Normally in these matters the High Court is not entitled to interfere with the findings on fact entered by the Industrial Tribunal. But, in this case, we notice that the Tribunal proceeded on the footting that the qualifications prescribed for the post of Supervisor and qualifications prescribed for the post of Electrician and Plumber are the same, which assumption is factually incorrect. The qualifications prescribed for the post of Supervisors is S.S.L.C plus Diploma in Engineering or certificate in Engineering or ITI whereas the qualification for Plumber and Electrician is only ITI certificate in the concerned trade. It has come out in evidence that W.A No.425 OF 2006 Page numbers Electrician and Plumber are not working under the factory Supervisor. They work under the concerned Assistant Engineer, Electrical and mechanical foreman respectively. Supervisor is in charge of the shift and he discharges supervisory functions inside the factory. Based on the above facts, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the contention of the management that those workmen are under the Supervisor is incorrect and therefore those workmen are entitled to get better scales of pay. But we notice that, status wise, supervisor is on a higher pedestal, though other workmen may be given better scales at a given point of time. The contention of the management on the above point is wrongly understood by the tribunal. The tribunal noticing that at the time of appointment, the posts of Plumber and Electrician were having a higher scale of payment compared to that of Supervisor, held, they are entitled to get at least equal pay when compared to that of the Supervisor. The management explained the initial anomaly by pointing out that the scale of pay of the Supervisor was fixed on an adhoc basis and later in consultation with the Rubber Board the appropriate scale of pay was fixed. We find that the said plea of the management was brushed aside without any justification. 4. It is common experience that in many factories, Supervisors being not workmen and without any trade union or W.A No.425 OF 2006 Page numbers bargaining power will be getting lesser pay whereas the workmen may be drawing better pay. So the drawing of higher salary by them is not decisive or determinative of the status of the incumbent concerned. Going by the pay scale drawn, and the nature of functions involved, the Supervisors are not, normally, covered by the definition of the workmen under Section 2(S) of the Industrial Dispute Act. Going by the reasoning of the Tribunal to which we have referred to, we cannot sustain its award though in industrial adjudication, labour courts and Tribunals have wider powers when compared to ordinary courts. Still they are bound to rest their decisions on relevant matters and omit to consider the irrelevant matters. The stand of the Tribunal as mentioned earlier that the qualification of all the three posts were identical is erroneous. Further, if at a given point of time the Supervisor was getting a lower pay, the concerned workmen are always entitled to get payment at least equal to that of Supervisor is also an untenable finding. In view of the above position, we find nothing wrong with the decision of the single bench quashing Ext.P2. Accordingly the judgment is sustained and the writ appeal is dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the judgment under appeal if sustained will foreclose for ever, the claim of Plumber and Electrician to have a better scale of pay. We W.A No.425 OF 2006 Page numbers think, the apprehension is not correct. The management or the Government can have a second look into the matter and grant appropriate scale of pay to the above group of workmen. The judgment under appeal will not stand in the way of taking any decision in this regard. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR JUDGE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE //True copy// P.A TO JUDGE vdv