Partly allowed

P.P.Padmini v. Dharmadam Service Co-Operative Bank

Kerala HC29 Nov 2012WP(C)/7231/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a writ petition to quash a Labour Court award limiting compensation to Rs.34,000. The Court held the rate inadequate, modified the award to Rs.85,000 total, and directed the bank to pay the difference to the dismissed sweeper. Relied on the Industrial Disputes Act and principles of natural justice regarding compensation adequacy. No specific statutes were applied or listed in th

What did the court decide?

Compensation for unemployment is increased from Rs.34,000 to Rs.85,000; 1st Respondent is directed to pay the awarded amount.

P.P.Padmini Vs Dharmadam Service Co-Operative… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/8TH AGRAHAYANA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 7231 of 2012 (D)

¶6

ID.19/2010 of LABOUR COURT, KANNUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

P.P.PADMINI, AGED 66 YEARS D/O.KUNHAMBU,PADMINI NIVAS,P.O.PALAYAD CHIRAKUNNI,VELLOZHUKKU,THALASSERY KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. DHARMADAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,

¶12

REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,PALAYAD.P.O

¶13

KANNUR DISTRICT,PIN-670661.

¶14

2. THE PRESIDING OFFICER,

¶15

LABOUR COURT,KANNUR,PIN-670003.

¶16

R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN

¶17

R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANITHA RAVINDRAN

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

tss

¶20

W.P.(C) NO.7231/2012

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶23

EXT-P1:- COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED B Y THE IST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT,KANNUR IN I.D.19/2010.

¶24

EXT-P2:- COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT,KANNUR IN I.D.19/2010.

¶25

EXT-P3 :- COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 31.8.2011 IN INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO.19/2010 OF LABOUR COURT,KANNUR.

¶26

EXT-P4 :- COPY OF THE SALARY STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶27

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

tss

HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.

¶33

W.P.(C).No.7231 Of 2012

¶34

Dated this the 29^th day of November, 2012.

¶35

J U D G M E N T

¶36

The writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P3 award to the extent it limits the compensation in lieu of reinstatement as Rs.34,000/- and for a direction directing the 1^st respondent to pay the compensation to the petitioner as shown in Ext.P4 salary statement.

¶37

The grievance of the petitioner is that though her termination is found to be illegal, she has not been adequately compensated in lieu of her reinstatement. Petitioner is aggrieved by the award of Rs.34,000/- as compensation in lieu of her reinstatement.

¶38

The Tribunal passed Ext.P3 award. The dispute referred for adjudication was “ whether the termination of service of Smt.P.P.Padmini, Part Time Sweeper with effect from 1.1.2008 by the management of M/s.Dharmadam Service Co-operative Bank, Palayad P.O., Kannur District is justifiable or not? If so, what relief the worker is entitled to? ”.

¶39

::2::

¶40

W.P.(C).No.7231 Of 2012

¶41

The petitioner was employed as a Part Time Sweeper under the management. She joined in service in 1980. The petitioner submits that she was paid pay and allowances based on Circular No.46/2000 dated 31.10.2000 treating her as a regular employee and that subsequently, as per G.O.(P). No.220/05 dated 28.3.2005, the scale of pay applicable to Part Time Contingent employees of primary co-operative societies was revised. The Labour Court held that the management in flagrant violation of the instructions retained in Ext.W1 terminated the service of the worker and that the action of the management was not justifiable. It was also held that the worker has the legitimate right to continue in service up to the age of 65 years. Her termination on 31.12.2009 was untimely. In 2007, she had completed only 62 years. She would have completed 65 years on 15.10.2010 and she had the right to continue in service up to 2010, the date of completion of 65 years. The Labour Court also held that the reinstatement of the worker is not possible in this case due to the reasons stated in the award. The Labour Court found that she was denied her right to work under the

¶42

::3::

¶43

W.P.(C).No.7231 Of 2012

¶44

management for 34 months. The Labour Court accepted the contention of the worker that after her termination she was unemployed. It was found that the management did not adduce any evidence to prove that she was employed thereafter. The primary responsibility of the worker to prove unemployment is satisfied by her by giving evidence and there is no contra evidence let in by the management. In the circumstance, the Labour Court found that the worker was unemployed after termination. Considering the factual situation, the Labour Court took the view that the entire benefit due to the worker could be assessed at Rs.34,000/- at the rate of Rs.1,000/- for each month and the management is directed to pay the compensation amount within one month from the date of award.

¶45

Ext.P3 award is under challenge to the extent it limits the compensation amount as Rs.34,000/-. It is contended by the petitioner that having found that termination is illegal, the Labour Court should have awarded full amount of compensation equal to the amount of salary and bonus which the petitioner could have drawn, if she continued her service up the age of 65

¶46

::4::

¶47

W.P.(C).No.7231 Of 2012

¶48

years. It is also contended that the awarding of compensation must be just and proper and that such compensation should have direct nexus with the wages, the worker was drawing at the time of termination.

¶49

On a perusal of Ext.P3 award it is seen that the compensation awarded in lieu of termination is not an adequate compensation having nexus to the wages drawn at the time of termination. Rs.34,000/- assessed @ Rs.1,000/- per month during the period she was kept out of employment is grossly inadequate. The assessment should have been made objectively and a reasonable sum should have been awarded as compensation.

¶50

Accordingly, I fix Rs.2,500/- per month for a period of 34 months. I find that the worker is entitled to a compensation of Rs.85,000/-. Ext.P3 award is modified to the said extent.

¶51

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶52

HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge.

¶53

bkn/-

P.P.Padmini v. Dharmadam Service Co-Operative Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.P.Padmini v. Dharmadam Service Co-Operative Bank

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

Rajasekhara Nair @ Jayan Vs the Principal

Federal Bank Ltd. Vs E.P.Abraham

Federal Bank Ltd. Vs Padmanabhan

P.S.Babu Raj Vs Alappey Co-Operative Spinning Mills Ltd.

Sunny Das & Another Vs the Joint Registrar (G) Co-Op. Societies

Manjeri Municipality Vs the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner