Allowed

R.Biju v. Managing Director, Kwa

Kerala HC1 Nov 2016WP(C)/27430/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court stayed the implementation of the Labour Court's award directing re-engagement of workers. It ordered the Kerala Water Authority to pay Rs. 1 lakh each as interim wages under Section 17B and contest the dispute before the Labour Court. Failure to pay will result in the award being implemented.

What did the court decide?

Directs Kerala Water Authority to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- each to workmen within 30 days to allow contest before Labour Court; otherwise, implement award immediately.

R.Biju Vs Managing Director, Kwa — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/10TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 27430 of 2013 (C)

¶6

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:

¶7

1. R.BIJU,

¶8

S/O.R.RAMACHANDRAN NADAR,OPERATOR, PLAMOODU, PATTOOR DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KOTTAKKAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

2. B. RAJAN,

¶10

S/O.SEETHAKUTTY NADAR, VALLANADU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, LINE WATCHER, SSU, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

3. G.GOPAKUMAR NAIR,

¶12

S/O.MADHAVAN PILLAI, KANJIRAPARA VEEDU, NEDUMON, KATTAYAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, LINE WATCHER, SSU, PERROKADA, ARUVIKKARA DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.S.SHARAN

¶14

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶15

1. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KWA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶16

2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, WATER SUPPLYING SECTION, KANJIRAMKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 524.

¶17

3. LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM-691 001.

¶18

R1 & R2 BY SRI.JOSEPH JOHN, SC R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.B.VINOD

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-11-2016, ALONG WITH OPLC. 5/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

msv/

¶21

WP(C).No. 27430 of 2013 (C)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶24

P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE LIST SUPPLIED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE ASST.EXE.ENGINEER,WATER SUPPLY SUB DIVISION, NEYYATTINAKRA

¶25

P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE WORK MEMO DTD 13/9/1995 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE IST RESPONDENT

¶26

P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DTD 25/5/1997 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶27

P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE DAILY LOG BOOK OF DRAINAGE PUMPING STATION

¶28

P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO ISSUED BY THE ASST. ENGINNER SPL. SURVEILLANCE UNIT SECTION, KWA, PERRORKADA

¶29

P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD 4/4/2002 SUBMITTED BY THE IST PETITIONER TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶30

P7: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 30/11/2007 IN WPC 27283/2007 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶31

P8: A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO KWA/JB/E3-10635/2007 DTD,22,12,2007 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶32

P9: A TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DTD 16/1/2008 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER CONSEL TO THE IST RESPONDENT

¶33

P10: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO THE LWAYER NOTICE DTD 25/2/2008 SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶34

P11: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD 11/2/2010 FILED BY THE IST PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE COURT MINISTER OF KERALA

¶35

P12: A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO KWA JB E1/3306-08 DTD 24/12/2008 SENT BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, KWA TO THE CHIEF ENGINEER, KWA SOUTHERN REGION CENTRAL REGION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶36

P13: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD 21/7/2010 IN WPC 27283/2007 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶37

P14: A TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DTD 30/5/2013 IN ID NO 42/2012 OF THE LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM

¶38

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: ------------------------

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msv/

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶44

W.P.(C).No.27430 of 2013 & O.P(LC).No.5 of 2014

¶45

Dated this the 1^st day of November, 2016

¶46

J U D G M E N T

¶47

These matters are taken up together for disposal today, as both the matter arises from the award of Labour Court, Kollam in I.D.No.42 of 2012.

¶48

The Government referred the Industrial Dispute under

¶49

Section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act to the Labour Court, Kollam to determine the following dispute.

¶50

“1.Whether the termination of service of Sri.R.Biju, Sri.S.Rajan and M.Gopakumaran Nair, daily waged employees of Kerala Water Authority by the management is justifiable?

¶51

If not, what are the reliefs entitled to them?”

¶52

The Labour Court on 30.05.2013 passed the following

¶53

award:

¶54

“In the result, Award is passed directing management to re-engage the workers as casual labourers in the same manner in which they were engaged till their termination within one month from the date of pronouncement of the Award and to regularize their service within 3 months and also to pay them all monetary benefits legally entitled to by them.”

¶55

O.P.(LC).No.5/2014, W.P.C.27430/13

¶56

¶57

This dispute between the management and workers have chequered history of litigation. In fact the workers have taken up their cause before this Court in the earlier round of litigation. Ultimately, this Court directed the petitioner to work out remedy before the Industrial Adjudicator. This is evident from the judgment dated 21.07.2010 in W.P.C.No.27283 of 2007. It is seen from the records that the management, Kerala Water Authority has not chosen to contest this matter before the Labour Court. They never appeared before the Labour Court to rebut the claim of the workmen. Therefore, an I.A.No.122 of 2013 was filed to set aside the ex parte award. It was dismissed vide order dated 21.11.2013. The management, Kerala Water Authority filed O.P.(LC).No.5 of 2014 to set aside the award of the Labour Court and to permit them to contest the case before the Labour Court. The writ petition No.27430 of 2013 is filed by the workmen to implement the award.

¶58

Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the workmen and the learned standing counsel appearing for the Kerala Water Authority. The learned senior counsel submits that the workers are entitled to wages under Section 17 B from the date of award and this will now come to an amount more than

¶59

O.P.(LC).No.5/2014, W.P.C.27430/13 3

¶60

nine lakhs for three workers. The learned senior counsel further argued that the Labour Court passed the award on an appraisal of the evidence and therefore, it is beyond the scope of judicial review of this Court to interfere with this matter. On the other hand the learned standing counsel for the water authority would contend that the award happened to be passed on account of the latches on the part of the counsel engaged by the Kerala Water Authority. Further it is contended that the Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate this dispute.

¶61

This Court is of the view that the management, the Kerala Water Authority should be given an opportunity to contest the case. However, it is to be noted that a long time has been lapsed and the workmen have been denied their legitimate wages which they are legally entitled under Section 17 B of the Industrial Disputes Act. There was a stay against the operation of the award in O.P.(LC).No.5 of 2014. Taking note of over all facts, this Court is of the view that an opportunity can be given to the Water Authority on payment of 1,00,000/- each to the₹ workmen. This one lakh is quantified taking note of wages payable by the Water Authority under Section 17 B of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, the writ petition and original

¶62

O.P.(LC).No.5/2014, W.P.C.27430/13

¶63

¶64

petition are disposed of with following directions:

¶65

The Kerala Water Authority shall pay cost of ₹1,00,000/- each to the workmen through the counsel appearing before this Court on or before 30.11.2016 and shall produce the receipt of such payment before the Labour Court.

¶66

Parties shall appear before the Labour Court on 07.12.2016. The Labour Court, thereafter shall dispose the Industrial Dispute within a further period of four months.

¶67

In the event, the Kerala Water Authority fails to pay the costs as above, the Water Authority management will not be entitled to the benefits of the judgment and water Authority shall implement the award of the Industrial Tribunal within two months in accordance with the direction of the Industrial Tribunal and shall pay the entire back wages due to the workmen. The award of the Labour Court is interfered subject to satisfaction of the above conditions.

¶68

(A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE)

¶69

R.Biju v. Managing Director, Kwa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Biju v. Managing Director, Kwa

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

Salam Vs Nooh P.P.

The Mattannur Co-Op. Rural Bank Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Vijayakumari Vs Urban Stancilas and Company

A.K.Sashikumar Vs State of Kerala & Others

Gurudev Rice and Agro Products Private Limited Vs the State of Kerala

James.C.Mathew Vs State Bank of Travancore