Judgment:
ORDER
Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.
1. This petition is by the Management, assailing the award dated 25-1-2006 passed by the Labour Court, Bangalore in Reference No. 6/1993.
2. The petitioner-Management was engaged in printing newspapers such as 'The Times of India' and 'The Economic Times' etc. The first party workmen were employed in the Press situated in Peenya Industrial Area. Initially, during 1985 these workmen joined as Plate Makers, but in the Press only printing work is being done after the plate making. Before plate making, the negatives are processed at the Joint or common premises of all the three establishments in addition to the marketing and collection of advertisement for the newspaper Times of India. There was a demand by the Union for Mage fixation for newspaper employees alleging that the Management has not extended full statutory benefits. The Bachawath Wage Board has fixed different wage rates for different occupations hence, the wage of plate makers is also notified.
3. The main contention of the first party workmen is that their main job is to do plate making and not negative joining and the negatives are prepared in the camera Section and then brought to the press in a van; those who prepare negatives in the camera Section are familiar with its buy-out and mutual connection with each other. It is also stated that the plate makers cannot efficiently make out the connections as the camera Section employees do and it is difficult for the first party workman to do negative joining work and this contention was taken by the Union.
4. The Labour Court has held that the workmen are supposed to discharge their duties as plate makers as well as negative joining. It has also held that so far as keeping the workmen under suspension and denying subsistence allowances, the Management was not justified. Accordingly ordered for reinstatement with 50% back wages from the date of their suspension. Hence, this petition by the Management.
5. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties.
6. As a matter of Fact Finding, the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that it is the duty of the workmen even to do the negative joining work on the ground that there is no such evidence produced that they were not supposed to do that work. Further it is noticed that the negative joining work was a preparatory week for plate making and even if the first party workman had carried out the said, there was no danger to their position as plate makers and there is no injustice is caused to the workmen when they were insisted to the work of negative joining along with plate making work.
7. It is the argument of the learned Counsel for the respondent that no enquiry was held and no finding was given by the Management, in the circumstances, there is justification for the Labour Court to award 100% hack wages.
8. Although an enquiry was not conducted and report was not submitted as is required, the fact remains that the evidence was let in before the Labour Court. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that the negative joining work is preemptory work and part of plate making. As such the workmen doing negative joining work does not amount to imposition and it is their work. However, it appears although an enquiry was instituted, it was revoked and when they were asked to report for duty, they refused to report for duty stating that the negative joining is not their and it is a different work.
9. The Labour Court hold that the negative joining is a part of the plate makers and the same cannot be disturbed. So far as payment of back wages is concerned, it is the argument of the learned Counsel for the respondent that there was no enquiry being held, as such they shall not be deprived of any back wages and for non-compliance of the procedure, the Labour Court ban awarded 100% back wages. As per the procedure, when the suspension order is invoked pending enquiry, the workmen are entitled for subsistence allowances till the conclusion of the enquiry at different rates and if the workmen are dismissed or if they were refused employment, then some subsistence allowance has to be paid and if there is refusal of employment, compensation has to be paid.
10. What is being noted by the Labour Court is that on 13-5-1992 when the suspension order was revoked and thereafter the Management directed to the workmen to report for duty and also to do the work of negative joining, it appears, the workman refused to join the duty. However, in the circumstances, in modification of the award of the Labour Court in ordering for payment of full back wages, it is hereby ordered that the Management shall pay subsistence allowances from the date of suspension till it is revoked as per the entitlement and for the remaining period, the Management shall pay 25% back wages till the award of the Labour Court. Since it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Management that from the date of award till today, the workmen were paid 17-B wages. The Management shall take the workman on duty within two months till then they shall be paid 17-B wages.
11. Accordingly, the petition is allowed in part.
One of the workmen said to have expired during the pendency of the matter before the Labour Court. The Management shall pay compensation in lieu of reinstatement to the legal representatives of the said workman as per the entitlement till his death.