Dismissed

Kuttan v. the Industrial Tribunal,Palakkad

Kerala HC2 Apr 2014WP(C)/13995/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the Writ Petition filed by workers challenging the awards of the Industrial Tribunal that rejected their claims for reinstatement and back-wages, upholding the Tribunal's finding that there was insufficient evidence to prove continuous employment or wages.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was dismissed with the directive to suffer the costs of the respective parties.

Kuttan Vs the Industrial Tribunal,Palakkad — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2014/12TH CHAITHRA, 1936

¶5

W.P.(C).No.13995 of 2006 (N)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):-

¶7

KUTTAN T., KUTTIKATTU MATAM (H),

¶8

MULLAMPARA, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

KOORIYODAN DEVAKI, D/O. VELU,

¶10

KOVILAKOMJUNDU SOUTH, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.BIJU BALAKRISHNAN.

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):-

¶13

THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PALAKKADU.

¶14

P. SURESH BABU,

¶15

(PROPRIETOR, DELUX HOTEL, MANJERI), S/O. LATE P. CHAKKUTTY,

¶16

PARAKKAL (H), KOVILAKOMKUNDU, MANJERI-676 121.

¶17

P. KUMARAN, S/O. THEYYUTTY, SNEHALATHA, ARUKIZHAYA, MANJERI.

¶18

P. AJAYAKUMAR, S/O. THEYYUTTY, PARAKKAL HOUSE, KOVILAKOMKUNDU, MANJERI.

¶19

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.NOUSHAD THOTTATHIL. R2 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON.

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-04-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

¶21

W.P.(C).NO.13995 OF 2006-N.

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:-

¶24

EXT.P1 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 20.1.2006 IN I.D.NO.74 OF 2003 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶25

EXT.P2 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 16.1.2006 IN I.D. NO.47 OF 2003 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶26

EXT.P3 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 20.11.2003 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN I.D.74 OF 2003 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶27

EXT.P4 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN I.D.47 OF 2003 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶28

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-

¶29

----------------------------------------NIL.

Vku/

( true copy )

K.Vinod Chandran, J.

W.P.(C).No.13995 of 2006-N

¶34

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

¶35

Dated this the 02^nd day of April, 2014

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

The petitioners raised separate claims of denial of employment before the appropriate Government, reference of which were made and answered by the Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad in two separate awards, being Exhibits P1 and P2.

¶38

This Court is not entering into the issue of, whether a

¶39

single writ petition could have been maintained against two awards passed by the Tribunal in the case of two different individuals; the cause of action of which also were distinct, though the subject matter was denial of employment. In any event, the writ petition having been kept pending for so many years, it is not proper for this Court to dismiss the same on the said ground. Necessarily, the claims have to be considered separately by this Court.

¶40

The 1^st petitioner is aggrieved by Exhibit P1 award and the 2^nd petitioner by Exhibit P2. The management is one and the same. The alleged employment was said to be in a proprietorship hotel, owned by one Chekkutty, who is no more. The

¶41

¶42

WP(C).No.13995 of 2006

¶43

original proprietor's son is impleaded as the 1^st management. Management Nos.2 and 3 are said to be the children of the brother of the original proprietor. The 1^st petitioner alleged that he had been employed in the said hotel for the last 36 years and that he was denied employment in December, 2000. The 1^st petitioner claimed back-wages for the period from December, 2000 as also reinstatement. Only management Nos.1 and 3 appeared before the Tribunal and filed a joint written statement, contending that the alleged hotel was a small tea shop and the said shop itself was gutted in a fire. It was also averred that the 1^st petitioner was the sister's son of the proprietor. The management denied employer-employee relationship; but, however, conceded that being a close relative, the 1^st respondent had been assisting, at times, the original proprietor in the tea shop.

¶44

The Tribunal found that apart from the testimony of the workman as WW-1, one another witness on the side of the management also, examined as MW-3, claimed to have seen the 1^st petitioner working in the tea shop. The Tribunal, however, noticed that though the 1^st petitioner would have worked in the tea shop of the management, there is no convincing evidence to substantiate the

¶45

¶46

WP(C).No.13995 of 2006

¶47

continuous employment of 36 years as claimed by the workman. The documents produced by the management was the registration certificate issued under the Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, which indicated that the shop was conducted by one Ajayakumar and one Vasudevan, of which only the 1^st person [Ajayakumar] was impleaded before the Tribunal, being the 3^rd management. In the context of there being no satisfactory evidence to show that the workman had rendered 36 years service with the management and evidence being absent as to the wages received by him, the Tribunal thought it fit to dispose of the claim with the award of compensation alone. The 1^st petitioner was also aged 55 years, disentitling him from any order of reinstatement. A compensation of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) was granted to the 1^st petitioner.

¶48

The 2^nd petitioner claimed 24 years of service. The defence of the management was more or similar as in the case of the 1^st petitioner. The 2^nd petitioner was alleged to be a domestic servant, working at the residence of Chekkutty. The evidence in the above Industrial Dispute was also similar to that of the one given in Exhibit P1. The very same witness, who was examined as MW-3 in the case of the 1^st petitioner, was examined in the present case also, who

¶49

¶50

WP(C).No.13995 of 2006

¶51

again deposed that occasionally the 2^nd petitioner was also seen in the tea shop. The Tribunal in the case of the 2^nd petitioner also found that there was nothing to show the continuous employment of the 2^nd petitioner or the wages paid to her. The reference in the case of the 2^nd petitioner was also answered, granting a compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only).

¶52

In the context of the complete lack of evidence with respect to the period of employment or the wages paid to the workmen, this Court does not see any reason to enhance the amounts granted under the awards passed by the Tribunal, produced herein as Exhibits P1 and P2. The claim of enhancement made by the petitioners in the above writ petition is not substantiated by any evidence, either before the Tribunal or before this Court. In such circumstance, the writ petition lacks merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

¶53

Sd/K.Vinod Chandran, Judge

¶54

vku.

¶55

( true copy )

Kuttan v. the Industrial Tribunal,Palakkad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuttan v. the Industrial Tribunal,Palakkad

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

Indian Coffee Board Workers Co-Operative Society Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Giridas Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Samuel Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

Sibitha Chandran Vs Kseb

Convenor, Jyothi Laboratories Thozhilali Vs Manager, Jyothi Laboratories Ltd.

Narayana Pillai S. Vs the Trivandrum Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Limited No. T 170