Disposed

G.Narayana Pillai v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Apr 2009WP(C)/4233/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that a dispute regarding the interpretation of Government Order dated 20.4.2005 concerning weightage and fitment benefits is primarily an industrial dispute. The petitioners were directed to approach the appropriate forum under the Industrial Dispute Act.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of amounts, if any, kept in abeyance for six months; petitioner directed to prosecute remedies before the appropriate forum.

G.Narayana Pillai Vs State of Kerala — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2009 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 4233 of 2009(D)

PETITIONER(S):

G.NARAYANA PILLAI, S/O.GOPALA PILLAI, RESIDING H.NO.57, MATTUPETTY, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.K.P.VIJAYAN SRI.V.M.SYAM KUMAR

¶11

SMT.KRIPA ELIZABETH MATHEWS

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

¶14

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT BOARD, PATTOM PALACE (PO), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.

¶16

THE MANAGER, KERALA LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT BOARD, MATTUPETTY, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶17

ADV. SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R2-3 SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI FOR R2-3

¶18

BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.. SANTHOSH

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/04/2009 A/W. WP(c).N.9806/09 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ANTONY DOMINIC,J.

¶21

W.P.(C).Nos.4233/09 & 9806/09

¶22

Dated this the Ist day of April, 2009.

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Petitioner in WP(c).No.4233/09 is a workman under the Kerala Live Stock Development Board and the petitioner in WP(c).No.9806/09 is a Trade Union representing the

¶25

workers in the said establishment.

¶26

The claim in these writ petitions is that in view of

¶27

the Government Order dated 20.4.2005, the workers are entitled to Rs.250/- towards the weightage and Rs.250/towards fitment benefit. It would appear that since these benefits have been separately shown in the Government Order referred to above, payment was being made. However by order dated 17.2.2009 issued by the Government of Kerala clarified that the fitment benefit is inclusive of weightage.

¶28

WP(c).Nos.4233/09 & 9806/09 2

¶29

In effect, by virtue of the Government Order referred to above, as against Rs.500 which was being paid, henceforth the employees will be getting only Rs.250/-. While the petitioners contended that in view of the provisions contained in the Government Order dated 20.4.2005, they are entitled to Rs.250/- towards weightage, and Rs.250/- towards fitmen benefit. The management contend that the Government have also clarified the position as per order dated 17.2.2009 , that the workmen can get only Rs.250/-.

¶30

In my view what calls for in this writ petition is an interpretation of the Government Order dated 20.4.2005 and this necessarily involves appreciation of various disputed question of fact. It is only appropriate that the petitioner in WP (c).No.9806/09, the Trade Union representing the workers of the Kerala Live Stock Development Board, should raise an industrial dispute concerning this issue, in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act. Petitioners contend that in view of the Government Publication dated

¶31

WP(c).Nos.4233/09 & 9806/09 3

¶32

17.2.2009, steps are being taken for recovering the amount that was already paid.

¶33

The standing counsel appearing for the Kerala Live Stock Development Bard submits that in view of the impending general election, the aforesaid demand has not been implemented, I direct that in order to enable the petitioner to prosecute their remedies before the appropriate forum, recovery if any from the petitioner be kept in abeyance for a period of six months from today.

¶34

Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

¶35

(ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE

¶36

vi/

¶37

WP(c).Nos.4233/09 & 9806/09 4

G.Narayana Pillai v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Narayana Pillai v. State of Kerala

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

Dr. Xavier Mathew Vs State Public Infofrmation Officer and Oo

K.Raveendran Vs State of Kerala

M.S.Santhosh Vs Sub Inspector of Police

P.T.Hussain Vs Secretary,Regional Transport Authority

Abdurahimankutty Vs State of Kerala

Sony George.B Vs the Joint Chief Contgroller of Explosive