Dismissed

Salim v. Sundaresan

Kerala HC30 Jan 2009WA/228/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against an impugned judgment dismissing a writ petition challenging a Labour Court order. The Labour Court held that termination violated Section 25F of the ID Act but awarded compensation instead of reinstatement. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no ground to interfere with the award under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed. Petitioners permitted to pay the compensation amount in three equal monthly instalments.

Salim Vs Sundaresan — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2009 / 10TH MAGHA 1930

¶5

WA.No. 228 of 2009

¶6

--------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.19811/2007 DATED 01/10/2007 ....................

¶7

APPELLANTS:

¶8

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

¶9

1. SALIM, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED, MUSTHAFFA, SALIM MANZIL, CHATHANPARA, THOTTAKKADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER M.S. SHAREEF, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. MOHAMMED IBRAHIM, SHAREEF MANZIL, PEROOR, VELLALLOOR VILLAGE.

¶10

2. NADEERA, W/O. SALIM, SALIM MANZIL, CHATHANPARA, THOTTAKKADU,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER M.S. SHAREEF, AGED 47 YEARS,S/O. MOHAMMED IBRAHIM, SHAREEF MANZIL, PEROOR, VELLALLOOR VILLAGE.

¶11

BY ADV. MR.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF.

¶12

RESPONDENT: ----------------------

¶13

SUNDARESAN, S/O. BHASKARAN, KATTIL VEEDU, VELLALLORE, PEROOR P.O., (VIA) KILIMANOOR, PIN - 695 601.

¶14

¶15

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/01/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

prv.

¶17

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

¶18

W.A.No.228 of 2009

¶19

Dated 30^th January, 2009

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Koshy, Ag.C.J .

¶22

Appellants/petitioners are owners of 2.10 Acres of land wherein rubber was planted. There were some industrial disputes regarding denial of work to the respondent workman and his union interfered in the matter. A police protection order was passed by this court granting protection to the employers, but at the same time observed that the respondent can raise his claims before the Labour authorities. The matter of denial of work was referred for adjudication before the Labour Court. The Labour Court found that the respondent was employed therein and on the basis of the evidence adduced before the court it was also found that his services were terminated without complying with the formalities under section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. But, considering the pleadings, the Labour Court instead of reinstatement directed to pay Rs.30,000/= as compensation . There were two workers, the respondent and his wife. The Labour Court found that his wife was not an employee. Relief was given only to the respondent. Finding of Labour Court is based on facts. The Labour Court did not award reinstatement, but,

¶23

W.A.228/2009 2

¶24

only a compensation was awarded. We are of the opinion that no interference is required in the award under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned single Judge rightly rejected the claim. We see no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. It is submitted that revenue recovery proceedings are taken against the petitioners. Petitioners are permitted to pay the amount ordered by the Labour Court in three equal monthly instalments. The first instalment should be paid on or before 20.2.2009.

¶25

The appeal is dismissed.

¶26

J.B.KOSHY ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶27

V.GIRI JUDGE

¶28

tks

Salim v. Sundaresan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salim v. Sundaresan

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

M/S.Cherian Varkey Construction Co.Ltd Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

A.Surendran Vs the Deputy Commissioner, Palakkad

V.v.Philip and Others Vs State of Kerala and Others

K.Radhakrishna Rai Vs State Transport Authority

Union of India Vs D.S.Roslind

M.B.Radhakrishnan Vs State of Kerala