Dismissed

A.P.Mohammed Rafeeque v. Taliparamba Service Co-Op.Bank Ltd.

Kerala HC2 Feb 2009WA/1141/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal challenged the dismissal of a review petition by a single judge. The single judge held that an appellant working as an LIC agent earning over Rs. 2 lakhs annually is not a workman entitled to wages under Section 17B of the Act. The High Court agreed with the single judge and dismissed the writ appeal.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed without any relief.

A.P.Mohammed Rafeeque Vs Taliparamba Service… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2009 / 13TH MAGHA 1930 WA.No. 1141 of 2007() --------------------AGAINST THE ORDER IN R.P.484/06 IN I.A.2065/06 IN WPC.29135/2005 ....................

¶3

APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER IN WPC NO.29135/2005

¶4

¶5

A.P.MOHAMMED RAFEEQUE, S/O. P.P.ABDULLA, PULIMPARAMBIL P.O., THALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶6

BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR SRI.P.M.SATHEESH

¶7

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT --------------------------

¶8

TALIPARAMBA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., TALIPARAMBA.

¶9

ADV. SRI.H.BADARUDDIN

¶10

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

J.B.KOSHY,Ag.C.J. & V.GIRI, J

¶12

W.A.1141/2007

¶13

Dated this 2^nd day of February, 2009

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

Koshy (Ag.C.J.)

¶16

Writ appeal is filed against an order of review passed by a learned single Judge. The appellant was dismissed from the service of the respondent, Co-operative Bank. Labour Court, Kannur, set aside the dismissal and directed the respondent to reinstate the workman. The management filed W.P.(C).29135/2005, and the appellant filed an I.A. in the above writ petition for a direction to the management to pay wages to him under Section 17B of the I.D Act, which was allowed directing the respondent to pay to the appellant wages at the rate of Rs.4050/-. Thereafter, the respondent preferred a review petition with the contention that the appellant is working as LIC agent and earning more than 2 Lakhs per year. 17B wages need be paid only if a workman is not engaged after termination. In this case, he is considered as a full time LIC agent and he earned better emoluments.

¶17

W.A.1141/2007

¶18

¶19

Learned Judge found that a person who earns more than 2 Lakhs per year as agency commission cannot be held to be a workman who is entitled to get wages under Section 17B of the Act. We are in full agreement with the views expressed by the learned single Judge. If the petitioner is aggrieved, he may move the learned single Judge for an early disposal of the writ petition, if it is not already disposed of. In view of the above, writ appeal is dismissed.

¶20

sd/-

¶21

J.B.KOSHY, Acting Chief Justice

¶22

sd/- V.GIRI, Judge

¶23

mrcs

¶24

//true copy//

¶25

P.A. to Judge

A.P.Mohammed Rafeeque v. Taliparamba Service Co-Op.Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.P.Mohammed Rafeeque v. Taliparamba Service Co-Op.Bank Ltd.

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

K.Radhakrishna Rai Vs State Transport Authority

Union of India Vs D.S.Roslind

M.B.Radhakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

The Baliapatam Tile Works Ltd. Vs Kseb

V.Ramachandra Reddiar Vs the Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner

Indian Bank Vs Metty Fraancis