Allowed

The Manager, Kaliyar Estate v. the Secretary, Thodupuzha

Kerala HC28 Oct 2016WP(C)/15703/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging an Industrial Tribunal award held the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction. Since the worker was a temporary employee without a specific post, there was no reversion. The Tribunal answering an issue of denied employment was ultra vires.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition allowed and the impugned award of the Industrial Tribunal set aside.

The Manager, Kaliyar Estate Vs the Secretary… — 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

FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/6TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 15703 of 2006 (T)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

THE MANAGER, KALIYAR ESTATE, THODUPUZHA.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE SECRETARY, THODUPUZHA TALUK THOTTAM THOZHILALI UNION, CITU, THODUPUZHA. 2. THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, IDUKKI.

¶11

R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.K.SUNIL R2 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.B.VONOD

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

¶14

WP(C).No. 15703 of 2006 (T)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶17

P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM STATEMENT FILED BY THE R1 BEFORE THE R2 DATED 29.10.01 IN ID.93/2000

¶18

P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R2 DATED 16/1/02 IN ID.93/2000

¶19

P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT STANDING ORDER DATED NIL.

¶20

P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PLANTATION LABOUR COMMITTEE SETTLEMENT DATED 6/3/2000

¶21

P5 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD PASSED BY THE R2 DATED 8/12/04 IN ID.93/2000.

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶28

W.P.(C) No. 15703 of 2006

¶29

Dated this the 28^th day of October, 2016

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

1.Challenging Ext.P5 award passed in I.D. No.93/2000 on the files of the Industrial Tribunal, Idukki, the petitioner management has come up before this Court with this writ petition.

¶32

2.The Government referred the industrial dispute for adjudication. The order of reference, as quoted in the impugned award, is as follows;

¶33

“1. Whether the action of the management of Kaliyar Estate having reverted the worker ShriRajamany from the post of Gardener to field worker of the estate is justifiable or not.

¶34

If not, justifiable what are the benefits legally entitled to.”

¶35

3.The case of the union was that Sri.Rajamany was a regular employee recruited in the year, 1989, as casual worker on daily wages. According to the union, he was working as gardener in the bunglow of the Assistant Manager from 1991 onwards. In 1999, the Assistant

¶36

..2..

¶37

W.P.(C) No. 15703 of 2006

¶38

Manager dispensed with his personal servants and the workman was asked to attend the domestic duties in the bunglow in addition to his regular duties as a gardener. Since he was refused to attend the domestic works, he was denied employment with effect from October, 1999.

¶39

4.The case of the management before the tribunal was that the employee was engaged as temporary worker since 1990 and for convenience of the management, he was sent to the bunglow of the Assistant Manager for cleaning and sweeping works. It is admitted that he was denied work in the bunglow since he refused to do the laundry work of the Asst. Manager. However, it is admitted that he was employed in the field and factory along with other temporary workers. The stand of the management is that he was a casual worker and not a regular employee.

¶40

5.The tribunal passed the award, holding that the management is liable to reinstate the workman in

¶41

..3..

¶42

W.P.(C) No. 15703 of 2006

¶43

service with back wages excluding the period when he was provided with temporary work.

¶44

6.The question of denial of work was not a subject matter of the reference. The only issue, which was referred to be considered by the tribunal, was the reversion of the worker from the post of gardener to field worker of the estate. The pleadings and materials on record clearly indicate that the worker was employed on temporary basis without assigning any duty. He was not appointed to any particular post. He was engaged duly for casual jobs. It appears that he was initially engaged as gardener and he was asked to do certain laundry works in the bunglow. In that scenario, the tribunal ought to have answered the question in favour of the petitioner, holding that there was no reversion as the petitioner was not appointed in any particular post and he was engaged only as a temporary worker. However, the tribunal went on, deciding a question of denial of employment, which was not a subject matter of

¶45

W.P.(C) No. 15703 of 2006

¶46

..4..

¶47

reference. Therefore, this Court is of the view that it is beyond the scope of the labour court, answering the question of denial of employment. If there is any denial of employment, it is open for the union to raise the issue as industrial dispute. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the impugned award has to be interfered with as there was nothing on record to show that any reversion had taken place while the employee was engaged by the management.

¶48

7.The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned award is set aside.

¶49

Sd/- A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE

¶50

bka/-

The Manager, Kaliyar Estate v. the Secretary, Thodupuzha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Manager, Kaliyar Estate v. the Secretary, Thodupuzha

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

Parameswaran Vs R.P.Suresh

P.P.Baiju Vs Rajamanikkam

Jithesh C P Vs Sri.P I Sheik Pareeth, IAS

Aji S Vs R.G.Vinod

Moidu Haji Vs Joseph K.O.

Rajesh N.T. Vs the Kerala State Co-Op.Empl.Pensionboard