Disposed

Federal Bank Ltd. v. Padmanabhan

Kerala HC28 Nov 2012WP(C)/8348/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to entertain an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act filed by a bank employee. The court directed the Labour Court to adjudicate the preliminary issue regarding its jurisdiction over banking companies.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 3rd respondent (Labour Court, Kannur) to consider the question of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue and pass appropriate orders within three months.

Federal Bank Ltd. Vs Padmanabhan — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/7TH AGRAHAYANA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 8348 of 2012 (P)

¶6

CP.10/2010 OF LABOUR COURT, KANNUR.

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., SULTHAN BATHERI BRANCH, CHULLIYODU ROAD, WYNAD. (REPRESENTED BY ASST. GENERAL MANAGER, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS DIVISION, HEAD OFFICE, ALUVA).

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.K.ANAND, SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. PADMANABHAN, S/O. KRISHNAN,

¶12

VETTAMPADIYIL HOUSE, NAGARAMCHAL. P.O.,

¶13

NOOLPUZHA, KALLOOR, WAYANAD DISTRICT-673 121.

¶14

2. TRUEMAN CONSULTING SOLLUTIONS P. LTD., 5 ROYAL PALMS GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB,

¶15

AAREY MILK COLONY, GOREGAON (EAST),

¶16

MUMBAI - 400 065.

¶17

3. LABOUR COURT, KANNUR-670 511.

¶18

R2 BY ADVS. SRI.P.V.BABY,

¶19

SRI.JOSHY THANNICKAMATTAM. R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.G. GOPAKUMAR.

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

rs.

¶22

WP(C).No. 8348 of 2012 (P)

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶25

EXT.P1 COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶26

EXT.P2 COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 30/10/2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶27

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

HARUN-UL-RASHID,J.

¶32

W.P.(C).NO. 8348 OF 2012

¶33

DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2012

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

Writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P1 claim

¶36

petition, for a declaration that the 3^rd respondent has no jurisdiction to try the issues involved in Ext.P1 application, which is numbered as C.P.No.10/2010 and for a declaration that only Central Government Industrial Tribunal alone will have jurisdiction to try any issues involving the petitioner-Bank.

¶37

The lst respondent filed Ext.P1 application before the Labour Court, Kannur under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes

¶38

Act claiming the amount mentioned therein towards the balance of salary/wages under the Payment of Wages Act. Petitioner filed Ext.P2 objection inter alia contending that the appropriate Government in relation to the 2^nd opposite party is the Central Government under the Industrial Disputes Act and the Labour Court specified under Section 33C(2) of the above Act is the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

¶39

-2-

¶40

W.P.(C).No.8348/2012

¶41

cum-Labour Court, Ernakulam. According to the petitioner, the Labour Court is not the one as specified by the Central Government under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act in respect of the matters relating to a banking company as defined under Section 2 (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Petitioner has also raised other contentions including the fact that there is no employer-employee relationship. The grievance of the petitioner is that without considering the preliminary objection as to the maintainability of Ext.P1 application the Labour Court is proceeding to decide the matter on merits. It is contended that the 3^rd respondent has no jurisdiction to try the issue involved in Ext.P1 application preferred by the lst respondent. It is specifically contended that since the appropriate Government in the case of a Bank is the Central Government, the Labour Court is not the one as specified by the Central Government under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act in respect of the matters relating to a banking company as defined under Section 2 (bb) of the Industrial

¶42

W.P.(C).No.8348/2012

¶43

-3-

¶44

Disputes Act.

¶45

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3^rd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law on the question of jurisdiction of the Labour Court to try and dispose of the application filed under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The question as to the maintainability of Ext.P1 application shall be tried as a preliminary issue and shall pass orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

¶46

judgment.

¶47

HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE.

¶48

kcv.

Federal Bank Ltd. v. Padmanabhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Federal Bank Ltd. v. Padmanabhan

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

Tom Thomas Vs Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

S.K.Joseph Vs S.K.Ittoop and Others

Ramesh v. Vs the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Rajasekhara Nair @ Jayan Vs the Principal

Federal Bank Ltd. Vs E.P.Abraham

Federal Bank Ltd. Vs K.E. Thomas