THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 32161 OF 1997 Date: 07.02.2008 Between: Smt. P. Kavita and four others. … Petitioners. And Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal. … Respondents. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 32161 OF 1997 ORDER: The first respondent herein, along with ten others, filed an application before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming parity in pay scales with Sri M. Kumaraiah, Crane operator, who had been temporarily deputed as a sales man on 12.04.1980, his pay was fixed in the scale of Rs.530-850 and he was paid salary in the said pay scales upto April, 1988. The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court allowed the claims of all the applicants except applicant Nos. 1 and 6. The first applicant in M.P. No. 18 of 1993 is the petitioner in this writ petition. As such we are not concerned with the order of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court in rejecting the claim of Sri L. Rajamouli, who was petitioner No. 6 before the Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court. The ground on which the petitioner herein was denied the relief sought for is that he was removed from service for misappropriation of the funds of the society. Sri V. Hariharan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner was removed from service on 29.04.1994 and, since the claim for parity in pay scales in M.P. No. 18 of 1993 was only till April, 1988, the mere fact that the petitioner herein was dismissed from service, subsequent to the filing of the application in M.P. No. 18 of 1993, on 20.09.1994 cannot be a ground to deny him the relief granted to the other petitioners. Learned Counsel would further submit that, subsequently the dismissal order was also challenged before the authority under the Shops and Establishments Act who directed that the petitioner herein be reinstated with continuity of service, that the said order was confirmed in S.A. No. 10 of 1995 and on a challenge thereto, by the Warangal District Cooperative Marketing Society, this Court, by order in W.P. No. 13786 of 1997 dated 12.04.2007, held that the petitioner herein was entitled to be reinstated with back wages and the said writ petition was accordingly dismissed. Learned Counsel would further contend that the order of the Tribunal in M.P. No. 18 of 1993, to the extent of the relief granted to petitioners 2 to 5 and 7 to 11, was challenged by the Employer in W.P. No. 6922 of 1997 and that this Court, by order dated 11.04.2007, had dismissed this writ petition also. While it is true that this Court in certiorari proceedings would not examine any material extraneous to the order of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, which is the subject matter of challenge before it, from the order of the Industrial Tribunal itself, it is evident that the claim for parity in wages is only till April, 1988. The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, while noting that the petitioner herein was removed from service, does not even record a finding as to whether he was removed from service prior to the period of the claim or subsequently. If the petitioner had been removed subsequent to April, 1988, as is now claimed before this Court, his subsequent removal from service could not form the basis for denying him parity in pay scales as sought for in M.P. No. 18 of 1993. During the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner died and his legal representatives were brought on record as petitioners 2 to 5. Since the order of the Labour Court, in M.P. No. 18 of 1993, suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record it is but appropriate that the order be set aside and M.P. No. of 18 of 1993 be remanded back to the first respondent who, after putting the petitioners 2 to 5 herein on notice and after permitting them to adduce evidence, including with regards events subsequent to the earlier order of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, shall consider the matter afresh and pass an order in accordance with law. Since the dispute relates to the year 1993, the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court shall hear the matter expeditiously, in any event not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _______________________________ Date: 07.02.2008 RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J MRKR