The High Court set aside an ex parte award and order in a service dispute, noting that the Labour Court lacks jurisdiction due to a binding precedent requiring arbitration under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act.
Exts. P2 and P6 set aside; declaration of service allowed under R. 51(2).
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.VINOD CHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/24TH JYAISHTA, 1938
WP(C).No. 18420 of 2004 (P)
PETITIONER:
KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
BY ADVS.SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN,SC,K.S.CO-OP BANK SRI.K.RAVIKUMAR, SC, K.S.CO-OP BANK SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM, SC, K.S.CO-OP BANK
RESPONDENTS:
1. THE LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM.
2. K.SREEKUMARAN NAIR KOLLAVILAKATH MELETH MELE VEEDU MANIKANTESWARAM P.O., TRIVANDRUM.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 18420 of 2004 (P)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :-
| EXT.P1 | - | COPY OF THE CLAIM STATEMENT FILED IN I.D. NO.114 OF 1993 OF THE LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM DATED 21.09.1995. |
|---|---|---|
| EXT.P2 | - | COPY OF THE AWARD IN I.D. NO.114 OF 1993 OF THE LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM DATED 18.01.1996. |
| EXT.P3 | - | COPY OF THE PETITION FILED IN I.D. NO.114 OF 1993 OF THE LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM DATED 02.07.1996. |
| EXT.P4 | - | COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITIONER FILED IN I.D. NO.114 OF 1993 OF THE LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM DATED 03.07.1996. |
| EXT.P5 | - | COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE ADVOCATE DATED 27.01.2003. |
| EXT.P6 | - | COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP NOS.154 AND 155 OF 1996 IN I.D. NO.114 OF 1993 OF THE LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM DATED 06.02.2003. |
| EXT.P7 | - | COPY OF THE AWARD IN I.D. NO.121 OF 1990 OF THE LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM DATED 03.12.2002. |
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
sp
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
---------------------------------W.P(C). No.18420 of 2004-P
---------------------------------Dated this the 14th day of June, 2016
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is aggrieved with Ext.P2 Award dated 18.01.1996, passed by the Labour Court, Kollam and Ext.P6 order dated 06.02.2003, by which the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the ex parte order filed with a delay of 169 days was also rejected.
W.P.(C) No.18420 of 2004-P
2
Management contended that there is no question of illegal termination, since the petitioner was employed on a casual basis for a period of 89 days. Ext.P2 Award was passed ex parte . The Management though appeared initially did not file written statement nor was any representation made, when the matter was called. The Management was hence declared ex-parte on 04.01.1996 and the case posted to 18.01.1996. On the said day, the workmen filed an affidavit in proof and on the basis of the averments in the affidavit and the documents produced, the Award was passed, directing the reinstatement of the 2nd respondent with all backwages.
W.P.(C) No.18420 of 2004-P
3
not at all considered, rightly so, since the Management failed to file a written statement or appear when the matter was posted for evidence.
to set aside the ex-parte order and the same was supported by an affidavit of the Counsel, who appeared before the Labour Court on behalf of the Management. The affidavit filed in support of the application is produced at Ext.P3 and it discloses that the Advocate had misplaced the files due to the shifting of his Office, which led to the Management being unrepresented before Court. The Labour Court rejected the same on the short ground that the application was filed beyond the 30 days of termination.
W.P.(C) No.18420 of 2004-P
4
Management would submit that in a similar dispute, the Labour Court has considered the entire issues and declined the claim raised by the casual employees as per Ext.P7. The workmen in Ext.P7 were found to be casual employees appointed on a temporary basis on daily wages and hence the claim of regular employment was declined. As of now, this Court is not competent to consider such matter, suffice it to notice that the ex-parte Award was sought to be set aside on valid grounds.
W.P.(C) No.18420 of 2004-P
5
petitioner Management has filed a petition for declaration of service under Rule 51 (2) of the Kerala High Court Act and Rules, 1998. This Court has today allowed the said application.
now the Labour Court would not have the jurisdiction to consider the claim raised by the 2nd respondent for reason of the binding precedent in Chirayinkeezhu Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Santhosh [2015 (4) KLT 163] . Hence, a remand to the Labour Court would not serve any purpose. Suffice it to notice that if the 2nd respondent is desirous of taking up the matter before the Arbitration Court under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, he would be entitled to do that if he approaches the Arbitration Court within a
W.P.(C) No.18420 of 2004-P
6
reasonable time.
The writ petition is allowed and Exts.P2 and P6 Award and order, respectively, are set aside. The petitioner shall communicate a copy of this judgment to the 2nd respondent, by registered post. No costs.
Sd/-
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE.
//True Copy//
P.A. to Judge.
sp/14/06/16
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the court should set aside the ex parte award and order under the writ petition.
Whether the petitioner should be allowed declaration of service under Rule 51 (2) of the Kerala High Court Act and Rules, 1998.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Chirayinkeezhu Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. SanthoshApplied¶7
Chirayinkeezhu Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Santhosh [2015 (4) KLT 163]
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Kerala State Co-operative Bank Ltd., Trivandrum
The Labour Court, Kollam
K.Sreekumaran Nair
K. Vinod Chandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
