Dismissed

Unnikrishnan Ponnan v. Union of India

Kerala HC23 May 2008OP/17374/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ petition challenging a Labour Court order rejecting a petitioner's claim for salary difference as a typist. The court held that without a competent authority recognizing the right, the claim is not ascertained and unenforceable under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the Labour Court order is dismissed.

Unnikrishnan Ponnan Vs Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2008 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1930

¶5

OP.No. 17374 of 2001(R)

¶6

-----------------------------------(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DTD. 26/04/2000 IN C.P.(C) 94/94 OF THE LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE)

¶7

PETITIONER: --------------------

¶8

UNNIKRISHNAN PONNAN, JUNIOR CLERK (PERSONAL BRANCH), OFFICE OF THE SECTION ENGINEER, (PERMANENT WAY), SOUTHERN RAILWAY, KARUR EAST.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR (PANAMPALLI NAGAR)

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

------------------------

¶12

1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, CHENNAI – 3.

¶13

2. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL ENGINEER (CO-ORDINATION), SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALAKKAD.

¶14

3. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALAKKAD.

¶15

4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER (RE-DESIGNATED AS ASSISTANT DIVISIONAL ENGINEER), SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALAKKAD.

¶16

5. THE LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE.

¶17

BY ADV. SRI.M.V.RAMACHANDRAN THAMPI,SC,RAILWAYS- R1 TO R4 SRI.MURALEEDHARA KAIMAL, ADDL.CGSC- R1 TO R4

¶18

THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/05/2006, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Kss

¶20

ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.27774/2001 IN O.P.NO.17374/2001 R

¶21

CLOSED

¶22

23/05/2008

¶23

SD/- S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶26

EXT.P1:	COPY OF PETITIONER'S REPRESENTATION DTD. 25/09/1990 ADDRESSED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT.P2:	COPY OF ENDORSEMENT NO.PGT/4/C.IV DTD. 18/10/90 OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER/SW/PALGHAT.
EXT.P3:	COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH DTD. 16/10/92 IN O.A.NO.1798/91.
EXT.P4:	COPY OF THE CLAIM PETITION 94/94 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE.
EXT.P5:	COPY OF THE WRITTEN OBJECTION FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN C.P.(C) NO.94/94.
EXT.P6:	COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN C.P.(C) NO.94/94.
EXT.P7:	COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM THE RESPONDENTS.
EXT.P8:	COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES IN CP(C) NO.94/94 SUBMITTING DOCUMENTS.
EXT.P9:	COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 26/04/2000 OF THE LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE IN C.P.(C) NO.94/94.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

Kss

S.SIRI JAGAN, J = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = O.P.No.17374 OF 2001

¶31

= = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 23^rd day of May, 2008.

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

The petitioner is appointed as a casual labour in the Railways, but subsequently was regularised as a gang man. He claims that for the period from 3.2.1976 to 7.11.1993 he worked as a typist. On that ground he filed an O.A. before the Central Administrative Tribunal claiming remuneration as a typist on the basis that his claim for appointment as a typist has been recommended by his superior officer. By judgment dated 16.10.1992, the Tribunal directed the management to consider the claim of the petitioner for salary of a typist with reference to the official records of the 3^rd respondent and the nature of work discharged by him. The management did not comply with the same and therefore a contempt case followed. Allegedly, to wreak vengeance for the action of the petitioner, an order was passed rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that no records are available to ascertain the volume of work done by the petitioner as typist. Thereafter, the petitioner filed C.P.(C)

¶34

O.P.No.17374 OF 2001 2

¶35

No.94/94 before the Central Government Labour Court, Kozhikode claiming an amount of Rs.68,592/-, alleged to be the difference in wages due to the petitioner. The management contested his claim. Ultimately by Ext.P9 order the Labour Court dismissed his claim. Petitioner is challenging the same.

¶36

According to the petitioner the Labour Court has not considered the documents filed by the petitioner and did not summon documents which the petitioner wanted the management to produce, which according to the petitioner would squarely clinch the issue in favour of the petitioner.

¶37

I have considered the contentions of the parties in detail. Although the Labour court has not specifically held so, I am of opinion that for the relief prayed for, no claim petitioner under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act would lie. Assuming that the petitioner in fact worked as a typist, it is not disputed before me that the petitioner was never recognised as a typist by any competent authority. Without some competent authority deciding that the petitioner, having been worked as a typist for the period in question, is entitled to salary as a typist, I do not think that the petitioner could have invoked the

¶38

O.P.No.17374 OF 2001

¶39

¶40

jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is settled law that the proceedings under Section 33(C)(2) is in the nature of execution proceedings and therefore only those ascertained rights which can be computed in terms of money can be enforced through proceedings under Section 33(C)(2). In this case, the petitioner could not satisfy me that any competent authority had in fact recognised his right for salary as a typist even assuming that he has worked as typist. As such the right to claim the salary as a typist is not a right which could be computed in term of money coming within the purview of Section 33(C)(2). As such the remedy of the petitioner lies in either approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal or raising an industrial dispute for ascertaining his right for salary as a typist. Without prejudice to such right, this writ petition is dismissed.

¶41

S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

¶42

bkn/-

Unnikrishnan Ponnan v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Unnikrishnan Ponnan v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vanchinad Hospitals Ltd. Vs Indian Overseas Bank

P.M.Hassankutty Vs State of Kerala and Another

Shanmugha Sundaram Vs the Chief Area Manager

C.J.Mathai Vs Shri.v.K.Ayyappan and Another

Kerala Newsprint Employees Union Vs Industrial Tribunal Kollam

The President Vs K.Viswanathan