Petitioners challenged an Award finding their termination defective under Section 25F of ID Act. Court rejected claim for reinstatement due to lack of evidence proving permanent employment status, dismissing the writ petition.
Respondents directed to pay compensation under Section 25F. No reinstatement.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/21ST JYAISHTA, 1936
WP(C).No. 8842 of 2005 (C)
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
1. SATHEESH.P., PANDARA KANDIYIL HOUSE, VAKKATH THAZHAM, CHALAPPURAM P.O., KOZHIKODE 673 002.
2. B.VINOD GODFREY, KARIMBIL PARAMBA HOUSE, VELLAYIL P.O. KOZHIKODE 673 001.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN SRI.MANU GOVIND
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE.
2. THE STATE OF BANK OF MYSORE,
3. THE REGIONAL MANAGER II, STATE BANK OF MYSORE, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE 560 001.
BY ADV. SRI.M.K.SUCHEENDRAN, ADDL.CGSC. R,R2 BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE BY ADV. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
rvs/
WP(C).No. 8842 of 2005 (C)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :
-----------------------
EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 04/10/04.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:
-----------------------
NIL.
/true copy/
P.A.TO JUDGE
rvs/
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.
W.P.(C) No.8842 of 2005-C
Dated this the 11th day of June, 2014
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging Exhibit P1 Award passed in I.D.(C)No.4 of 1998 and I.D.(C) No.6 of 1998 of the Labour Court, Kozhikode. The petitioners had raised an industrial dispute alleging that they had been terminated from service by the second respondent illegally. The Labour Court considered the matter, found that the termination of the petitioners were defective for the reason of noncompliance with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). However, instead of ordering reinstatement, they were only directed to be paid the compensation stipulated by Section 25F of the Act.
petitioners had been engaged continuously for more than 240 days. The nature of the work discharged by them was
-:2:-
W.P.(C) No.8842 of 2005-C
not of a temporary nature but of permanent nature. Therefore, they were treated as temporary only for the purpose of overreaching the provisions of law. It has been found by the Lower Court that vouchers for payment of wages to them were periodically issued in different names. Though it would appear that there was break in service going by the vouchers produced, the petitioners were in fact working continuously without any break. It is therefore contended that it is a fit case in which Labour Court ought to have ordered reinstatement of the petitioners.
-:3:-
W.P.(C) No.8842 of 2005-C
Act, respondents 2 and 3 would extend the benefits of the said provision to the petitioners. They have not chosen to challenge the Award for the said reason. It is therefore contended that no interference with Exhibit P1 is called for as prayed for by the petitioners.
-:4:-
W.P.(C) No.8842 of 2005-C
of signatures in the different vouchers that the petitioners had signed even the vouchers in the names of some other persons. For the said reasons, the Labour Court has found that the termination of the petitioners ought to have been made after conforming with the formalities of Section 25F of the Act. No reinstatement has been ordered for the reason that, no evidence has been adduced to support the contention that they were permanent employees. The said situation continues to subsist before this Court also. In the absence of any evidence to show that the petitioners were permanent workers, no reinstatement could be ordered. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the conclusion of the Labour Court that the petitioners were not entitled to be reinstated in service.
The petitioners have been found entitled to compensation payable under Section 25F of the Act. Respondents 2 and 3 have been directed to pay compensation to the petitioners in accordance with the said
-:5:-
W.P.(C) No.8842 of 2005-C
provision. I am not satisfied that the petitioners are entitled to any further relief.
For the above reasons, this writ petition fails and is
accordingly dismissed.
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE
kkj
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners, engaged as temporary workers without evidence of permanent tenure, are entitled to reinstatement instead of compensation for defective termination under Section 25F of the Ind
Whether the finding of the Labour Court that petitioners were not permanent employees despite alleged continuous service warrants interference.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SATHEESH.P.
B.VINOD GODFREY
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE
THE STATE OF BANK OF MYSORE, CALICUT
THE REGIONAL MANAGER II, STATE BANK OF MYSORE, BANGALORE
K.SURENDRA MOHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
