Dismissed

M.N.Somasekharan Nair v. the Industrial Tribunal, Kozhikode

Kerala HC12 Jan 2009OP/2621/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging an Industrial Tribunal award and a Labour Court application sought wages. The court dismissed the petition, holding the challenge to the Tribunal award hopelessly belated and the challenge to the Labour Court application untenable, directing the petitioner to prove his status before the Labour Court.

What did the court decide?

The original petition challenging the Industrial Tribunal award and Labour Court application was dismissed.

M.N.Somasekharan Nair Vs the Industrial… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2009 / 22ND POUSHA 1930

¶5

OP.No. 2621 of 2001(K) ------------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

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

¶8

M.N.SOMASEKHGARAN NAIR, MOOTHEDATHU HOUSE, KOTTAPPADY P.O. NAGANCHERRY, KOTHAMANGALAM

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.M.C.JOHN SRI.JESWIN P.VARGHESE

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

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

¶12

1. THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE

¶13

2. A. SUGATHAN, MACHITHOTTATHIL HOUSE, THENHIPPALAM P.O., MALAPPURAM - 673 636.

¶14

3. P.R.VENU, C/O. A SUGATHAN, MACHITHOTTATHIL HOUSE,

¶15

THENHIPPALAM,

¶16

MALAPPURAM - 673 636

¶17

4. V.A. RAMACHANDRAN, C/O. A. SUGATHAN, MACHITHOTTATHIL HOUSE, THENHIPPALAM P.O., MALAPPURAM - 673 636

¶18

5. B.A. RAMACHANDRAN, PALAPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHAMPIYANGADU, KAIPAMANGALAM - 680 681.

¶19

6. K.V. MOHANAN, KANDANGATTIL HOUSE, CHENDRAPPINNI (EAST) - 680 687

¶20

7. M.R.RAMESH, MANPARAMBATH HOUSE, KAIPAMANGALAM - 680 687

¶21

8. SECRETARY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT MADHYA

¶22

VYAVASAYA THOZHILALI UNION (CITU) PARAPPANANGADI.

¶23

9. THE SECRETARY, KERALA MADYA VYAVASAYA FEDERATION (K.T.U.F.) PARAPPANANGADI.

¶24

ADDL.10 - LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE - IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 10TH RESPONDENT IN THE ORIGINAL PETITION AS PER ORDER DATED 25.2.2008 IN C.M.P. NO. 6148 OF 2001

¶25

ADVS. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN FOR R2 SRI.N.GOVINDAN NAIR FOR R2 TO R4 SRI.N.SANKARA MENON KALOOR FOR R2 TO R4 SRI.G.ASHOK KUMAR FOR R2 TO R4 SRI.T.BIJU MANOHAR FOR R2 TO R4 SRI.BIMAL KUMAR FOR R2 TO R4 SRI.K.P.SUDHEER FOR R8

¶26

THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

OP.No. 2621 of 2001(K)

¶28

C.M.P. No. 4421 OF 2001 IN O.P. NO. 2621 OF 2001

¶29

DISMISSED

¶30

SD/S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

¶31

12.1.2009.

¶32

APPENDIX

¶33

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶34

EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN I.D. NO. 65 OF 1989 ON 4.3.1992.

¶35

EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 20.12.1999 FILED BY RESPONDENTS 2,3,AND 4 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶36

EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE.

// TRUE COPY //

PA TO JUDGE

rhs

S.SIRI JAGAN, J

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P. No.2621 of 2001

¶42

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12^th day of January, 2009

¶43

J U D G M E N T

¶44

Challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P1 and P2. Ext.P1 is the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Kozhikode in I.D. No. 65 of 1989. Ext.P2 is an order of the Labour Court, Kozhikode by which the workmen involved in Ext.P1 award sought payment of wages since he was not reinstated as directed in Ext.P1 award. Respondents 2 to 4 herein raised the industrial dispute complaining that, they were denied employment by the managements from 1.4.1988 onwards. Respondents 5 to 7 were arrayed as the management in the I.D. None contested the I.D. Therefore, relying on the evidence of one workman which was unchallenged, the Industrial Tribunal directed reinstatement of the workman with backwages. Since the same was not implemented the workers filed Ext.P2 application before the Labour Court, Kozhikode claiming wages for the period from 1.4.1988 to 31.3.1996. The petitioner who is one of the managements is challenging Exts.P1 award and P2 application.

¶45

I am not inclined to entertain the challenges against either Exts.P1 or P2. Ext.P1 award is dated 4.3.1992 and the petitioner is

¶46

¶47

O.P. No.2621 of 2001

¶48

challenging the same on 24.1.2001. Although the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not given notice in the I.D, on perusal of the files of the Industrial Tribunal in I.D. 65 of 1989, I find that the petitioner had in fact filed a vakalth in that I.D. That being so, the contention of the petitioner that he was not issued with notice in that I.D. is not correct. Therefore the challenge against Ext.P1 award is hopelessly belated and the petitioner has not offerred any plausible explanation for the delay. Further the explanation furnished by him is found to be false. As far as Ext.P2 is concerned, the same is only an application filed before the Labour Court, Kozhikode. The petitioner cannot challenge an application filed before the Labour Court. His remedy lies in raising all his contentions before the Labour Court.

¶49

That does not necessarily mean that the petitioner is liable for complying with Ext.P1 award. That depends on whether the petitioner was the employer who denied employment to the workman involved. Petitioner's contention is that he was a licencee of the arrack shop in which the respondents 2 to 4 were employees only for the period up to 31.3.1987. I had called for the files of the I.D. which is made available. The 6^th respondent, who was the one of the managements in the I.D, had filed a written statement before the tribunal in the I.D. From the

¶50

¶51

O.P. No.2621 of 2001

¶52

statement, I find that the 6^th respondent had in that statement specifically admitted that he was the contractor in respect of the arrack shop in which respondents 2 to 4 were employed for the year 1.4.1988 to 31.3.1989. Therefore it is for the petitioner to appear before the Labour Court and prove the above facts and establish that he is not the employer liable to satisfy Ext.P1 award. Therefore, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to prove the said fact before the Labour Court, this original petition is disposed of.

¶53

S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

¶54

rhs

M.N.Somasekharan Nair v. the Industrial Tribunal, Kozhikode

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.N.Somasekharan Nair v. the Industrial Tribunal, Kozhikode

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.K.Rugmini Vs Shri.M.Subair

Sahira Basheer Vs the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.and Other

Shobhana Vs the Managing Director

Baby N.V. Vs S.K.Ratheeshkumar

Dr.R.Prakasam Vs Institute of Management

Eldhose Pynadath Vs State of Kerala