Remanded

Meerankutty v. Labour Court

Kerala HC21 Dec 2016WP(C)/10873/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court set aside an order of the Labour Court which dismissed a claim for reinstatement benefits by treating a specific period as a closure period under a conciliation settlement. The Court held the Labour Court erred in ignoring the mandatory binding nature of the relevant Tribunal award under the Industrial Disputes Act and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

The imputed order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Labour Court for fresh consideration within four months.

Meerankutty Vs Labour Court — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/30TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 10873 of 2014 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MEERANKUTTY, WORKER NO.1743, S/O.KOYAKKUTTY, KOTTADATHIL VEEDU, THUNGAMALAY, VANDIPERIYAR, IDUKKI

¶8

BY ADVS.SMT.A.K.PREETHA SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM 682 031.

¶11

2. M/S.RAM BAHADUR THAKUR PRIVATE LTD. (GROUP II), SIDHARTH, II MAIN ROAD, WELLINGTON ISLAND, KOCHI-3, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MANISH MOHAN SHARMA - 682 003.

¶12

3. THE MANAGER, THUNGAMALLAY ESTATE, VANDIPERIYAR PO, IDUKKI - 686 002.

¶13

R2 BY ADVS.SRI.K.M.ANEESH SRI.K.SANTHOSH KUMAR (KALIYANAM) SRI.ADARSH KUMAR

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

mbr/

¶16

WP(C).No. 10873 of 2014 (H)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶19

EXHIBIT P1 :	COPY OF THE AWARD PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, IDUKKI IN ID 4/2000
EXHIBIT P2 :	COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM IN CP 88/2006 DATED 20/12/2006.
EXHIBIT P3 :	COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WPC 16681/2009 DATED 20/1/2012.
EXHIBIT P4 :	COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM IN CP 43/20089 DATED 10/2/2011.
EXHIBIT P5 :	COPY OF THE CLAIM PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT IN CP 5/2011.
EXHIBIT P6 :	COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY RESPONDENT'S 2 AND 3 IN CP 5/2011.
EXHIBIT P7 :	COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 28/1/2011.
EXHIBIT P8 :	COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT DATED 18/4/2011.
EXHIBIT P9 :	COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 3/1/2014 IN CP 5/2011.

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶25

W.P.(C) No. 10873 of 2014

¶26

Dated this the 21^st day of December, 2016

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

1.The petitioner filed an application under Section 33(c)

¶29

(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, claiming the benefit of Ext.P1 award. By Ext.P1, the petitioner was directed to be reinstated with back wages. The petitioner was not reinstated. Therefore, he filed Ext.P5 claim petition, claiming a sum of 1,01,008/- for₹ the period from 07.08.2009 to 31.12.2010. This application was dismissed as per Ext.P9 order, stating that the above period is covered by a settlement arrived at between the union and the management, at the behest of the Government, in Ext.P8 conciliation settlement. It is pointed out in the impugned order that the period covered as above has to be treated as a closure period as far as the conciliation settlement is concerned. Therefore, taking note of Ext.P8

¶30

..2..

¶31

W.P.(C) No. 10873 of 2014

¶32

conciliation settlement, the Labour Court dismissed the application as per Ext.P9 order.

¶33

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner, assailing Ext.P9 order, submits that in terms of Section 19(4) r/w Section 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short, “the Act”), unless the award is varied by a reference at the instance of the Government or the parties, it shall be binding on all the parties to the dispute.

¶34

3.I see force in the said argument. In fact, the Labour Court has not adverted to Section 19(4) in the light of Section 18(3). Therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Further, it is to be noted that at the time of entering into the conciliation settlement, the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation.

¶35

4.Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of, as follows;

¶36

The impugned order is set aside.

¶37

The matter is remitted back to the Labour Court, Ernakulam for fresh consideration.

¶38

W.P.(C) No. 10873 of 2014

¶39

..3..

¶40

The parties shall appear before the Labour Court, Ernakulam on 20.01.2017.

¶41

After hearing the parties, appropriate decision shall be taken within a period of four months.

¶42

Sd/- A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE

¶43

bka/-

Meerankutty v. Labour Court

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meerankutty v. Labour Court

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.N. Raghavan Vs Sri. Anil Kumar

Rajendran Vs G K Suresh Kumar

Gopala Krishnan.D Vs the General Manager

P.Mohanan Vs the State of Kerala & Others

Sree Anjaneya Charitable Trust Vs Sri. Bhanu Pratap Sharma

Suresh Vs State of Kerala