The High Court of Kerala dismissed an original petition challenging an Industrial Tribunal award in an industrial dispute. The Court held that the Tribunal's decision on recovering advances and adjusting incentives was valid and non-pervasive.
The original petition was dismissed with no merit found.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN
FRIDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2008 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1930
OP.No. 5138 of 2001(J)
PETITIONER:
THE KERALA NEWSPRINT EMPLOYEES UNION (CITU), NEWSPRINT NAGAR, KOTTAYAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
BY ADV. SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN
RESPONDENTS:
BY SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R2
THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: O.P.NO. 5138/2001.
EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF SETTLEMENT DT. 19-8-1988.
EXT.P2 AWARD IN I.D.NO. 42/90.
EXT.P3 JUDOGMENT IN W.A.NO. 1182/1993.
EXT.P4 AWARD DT. 17-2-2000 PUBLISHED IN KERALA GAZETTE.
[TRUE COPY]
P.S TO JUDGE.
S. Siri Jagan, J.
O. P No. 5138 of 2001
Dated this, the 23rd May, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is one of the Unions in I.D.No. 42/1990 before the Industrial Tribunal, Kollam. They are challenging Ext. P4 award passed by the Tribunal in that I.D. The issues referred for adjudication were as follows:
“(1) Whether the whole or part of the 45 days wages paid as recoverable advance during Onam 1988 in terms of memorandum of settlement dated 19-8-1988 is to be recovered after adjusting the incentive payment due to the workman under the PLI Scheme?
(2) If the above amount is to be recovered either in whole or part, what should the mode of recovery be?”
The Union contended that the amount was not liable to be recovered at all. The Tribunal, after an earlier round of litigation before this Court , on remand, passed Ext. P4 award holding against the Unions. That is under challenge before me. Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the findings in the award are perverse.
“The only point to be considered is whether the amount of advance of 45 days salary paid to the employees as per Ext. M1 settlement dated 19-8-1988 could be recovered by the management after adjusting the incentive payment due to the workmen under PLI scheme as per Ext. M2 settlement and also the mode of recovery. According to management as per Ext.M2 settlement payment of 45 days salary was made only as a recoverable advance. It is not disputed that Ext. M1 is a conciliation settlement and hence it is binding upon all the employees of the management. Hence the employees have no right to object the recovery of the said payment from them in the light of the specific wordings in the settlement that the amount was payable only as advance and it is also noticeable that as per clause-2 of the said settlement it was further agreed to discuss the terms and modalities of recovery/adjustment of the above amount. It is not disputed that no amount is legally payable to the workmen by way of bonus under the Act for the year 1987-88. Hence the
O.P. No.5138/2001
-: 2 :-
question of adjustment of the recoverable advance against bonus payable for the year 1987-88 does not also arise. Further no dispute was raised regarding bonus under the Act after Ext. M1 settlement for the year 1987-88. On the other hand it was clearly agreed in Ext. M2 settlement for PLI Scheme that bonus is payable strictly according to the provisions of the Act. Of course the employees were entitled for incentive as per the PLI Scheme for the year 1987-88 as per Ext. M2 settlement dated 28-1-1989 and the management is ready to adjust the same towards the recoverable advance already paid as per Ext. M1 settlement. In these circumstances the management is fully justified in adjusting recoverable advance from the incentive payment as per Ext. M2 settlement and the management is also entitled to recover further amount if any due from the employees after the said adjustment.”
The settlement referred to in the award is Ext. P1, which reads thus:
“1. The management agrees to pay a recoverable advance at the rate of 45 days salary payable for the month of March 1988 extensive (sic exclusive) of interim relief.
On a reading of Ext. P1 settlement and the above finding of the Tribunal, I do not find any perversity whatsoever in the findings of the Tribunal. Therefore, I am satisfied that the Tribunal has decided the issue validly and correctly. I, therefore, do not find any merit in the original petition and accordingly the same is dismissed.
S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the original petition challenging the Industrial Tribunal award has merit.
Whether the Tribunal's findings regarding recoverable advance and incentive adjustment are perverse.
THE KERALA NEWSPRINT EMPLOYEES UNION (CITU)
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM
HINDUSTAN NEWSPRINT LTD.
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
S.SIRI JAGAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
