Dismissed

N.Venkateswara Pai v. Union of India & Another

Kerala HC14 Nov 2016WP(C)/13898/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a Labour Court award refusing reinstatement and notice benefits to a petitioner alleging wrongful termination. The High Court dismissed the petition, finding no ground to interfere as the petitioner admitted working only 188 days, failing to meet the one-year service threshold for Section 25F.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the Labour Court award was dismissed; the petitioner was not entitled to reinstatement or notice benefits.

N.Venkateswara Pai Vs Union of India & Another — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/23RD KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 13898 of 2007 (D)

¶6

ID. NO.92/2006 OF LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM.

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

N. VENKATESWARA PAI, S/O.LATE N. NARAYANA PAI, 31/2274, VYSAKH, JUBILEE ROAD, THAMMANAM, KOCHI - 32.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.P.VINODKUMAR, SRI.SUSHANTH.J.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR, NEW DELHI.

¶12

2. THE CHAIRMAN, LORD KRISHNA BANK LTD., ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, KALOOR, KOCHI - 17.

¶13

R1 BY ADV. SRI.N. NAGARESH, ASST. S.G. OF INDIA. BY ADV. SHRI.SUNIL CYRIAC, CGC. R2 BY SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI, SENIOR ADVOCATE. ADV. SRI.SAJI VARGHESE.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

rs.

¶16

WP(C).No. 13898 of 2007 (D)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶19

EXT.P1 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18/05/2001 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT BANK.

¶20

EXT.P2 COPY OF THE AWARD IN IN I.D. NO.92/06 DATED 11/12/2006 BY C.G.I.T. & LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM.

¶21

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

P.V.ASHA, J.

W.P(C) No.13898 of 2007-D

¶27

Dated this the 14^th day of November, 2016

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P2 award in I.D.92 of 2006 of the Labour Court, Ernakulam.

¶30

The issue raised for adjudication before the Labour Court was “whether the action of the management of Lord Krishna Bank in terminating the services of Sri N.Venkateswara Pai is justified, if not, what relief the applicant concerned is entitled”. Petitioner's claim was that he worked for more than 188 days in the Lord Krishna Bank for the period from 20.02.2001 to 05.09.2001 and his services were terminated in order to accommodate another person.

¶31

The management filed a written statement stating that the workman was engaged on daily wages as a temporary Peon and he had worked only for a period of 154 days. It was stated that the workman was not disengaged for the purpose of accommodating any person. On the other hand, Sri Santhosh Kumar who was alleged to have replaced the petitioner was

¶32

¶33

W.P(C) No.13898 of 2007-D

¶34

working in other branches.

¶35

The Tribunal found that there was no violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act since even according to the claimant workman, he had worked only for a period of 188 days. Section 25F of the I.D Act provides for a notice before termination, in a case where the workman has worked for a period of not less than one year, which should be not less than 240 days. The management had disputed status of the workman saying that he did not come under the purview of workman as defined under Section 2(s). As the workman did not have service for a period of 240 days, the Labour Court found that he was not entitled to any notice or any benefit under Section 25F of the I.D Act. At the same time, it was found that there was violation of the conditions stipulated in paragraph 522(4) of the Sastry award according to which temporary employees engaged for indefinite period shall be entitled to one month’s pay and allowances. It was found that the workman was not engaged on the basis of any order of appointment or for indefinite period. Going by the Sastry award, the Labour Court found that the petitioner was entitled to one week’s pay as per para 522(4) and one month's pay as per para 524(1) of Sasthri Award and that he

¶36

W.P(C) No.13898 of 2007-D 3

¶37

is not entiled to re-instatement or any of the benefits under Section 25F of the ID Act.

¶38

It is as against this award, that the petitioner has approached this Court contending that he was having continuous service of more than one year and therefore the Labour Court ought to have directed his reinstatement. When the workman himself has stated that he worked only for a period of 188 days, there is no substance in the contention of the petitioner that he is entitled to the benefit of Section 25F or that he worked for a continuous period of one year.

¶39

In the above circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the award of the Labour Court. Hence the Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

(P.V.ASHA, JUDGE)

¶42

rtr/

N.Venkateswara Pai v. Union of India & Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Venkateswara Pai v. Union of India & Another

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

Soumini P. Vs State of Kerala

Apple a Day Properties Private Limited Vs State of Kerala

P.P.Koya Vs the South Indian Bank Ltd.

K.Muralieedharan Nair Vs Aneesh Kumar

Isha Shahul Hameed Vs the Director Ihrd

Mathai & Another Vs the District Collector & Others