Partly allowed

Vijayakumari v. Urban Stancilas and Company

Kerala HC31 Oct 2016WP(C)/28417/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala set aside an order dismissing a Section 33C(2) claim petition where the dismissal resulted solely from the non-production of a correcting order due to a clerical omission of the petitioner's name in the original award's operative portion, directing fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P5 order is set aside; parties to appear before Labour Court, Kollam for a fresh decision.

Vijayakumari Vs Urban Stancilas and Company — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/9TH KARTHIKA, 1938 WP(C).No. 28417 of 2008 (G) ----------------------------

¶5

CP 7/2007 OF LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM

¶6

ID 53/2003 of INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM

¶7

--------------

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

VIJAYAKUMARI,PRASAD BHAVAN, VETTIKAVALA, KOTTARAKKARA,KOLLAM, DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SARIN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. URBAN STANCILAS AND COMPANY, DEVELOPMENT PLOT, MUNDAKKAL WEST, P.B. NUMBER -12, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY, ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,

¶13

2. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL KOLLAM.

¶14

3. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM.

¶15

R1 BY ADVS. SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA SRI.TERRY V.JAMES R2,R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI VINOD.B

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

K.V.

¶18

WPC NO 28417 OF 2008:

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:

¶21

P1: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PRESCRIBING MINIMUM RATES OF

¶22

P2: COPY OF THE BPL RATION CARD OF THE PETITIONER.

¶23

P3: COPY OF THE AWARD OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT IN I.D.53 OF 2003.

¶24

P4: CERTIFIED TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT IN CMP NUMBER 11/2006 IN I.D. NUMBER 53 OF 2003.

¶25

P5: CERTIFIED TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT IN CLAIM PETITION NUMBER 07 0F 2007.

¶26

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

K.V.

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶31

W.P.(C) No. 28417 of 2008

¶32

Dated this the 31^st day of October, 2016

¶33

J U D G M E N T

¶34

1.The writ petition is filed by the petitioner in CP No.7/2007, a claim petition filed under Section 33 C(2)

¶35

of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short, “the Act”).

¶36

2.An industrial dispute was adjudicated by the Industrial Tribunal, Kollam, in ID No.53/2003 on a reference from

¶37

the Government. The reference states as follows;

¶38

“Whether the alleged closure of Urban Stancilas Company, Chirattakonam with effect from 31.5.2000 is justifiable? 2. If not what relief the workman namely Smt.L.Omana Amma Smt.H.Lakshmykutty, Smt.S.Santha Kumari and Smt.Vijayakumari are entitled to.”

¶39

This shows that the industrial dispute was adjudicated in respect of the workmen including the petitioner (Smt.Vijayakumari). An award was passed in that industrial dispute, awarding certain monetary benefits

¶40

as per Ext.P3. However, in the operative portion of Ext.P3 award, there was an omission in referring the

¶41

W.P.(C) No. 28417 of 2008

¶42

..2..

¶43

petitioner's name. Thereupon, the petitioner filed an application by CMP No.11/2006 in ID No.53/2003, wherein the eligibility of the petitioner was declared as per Ext.P4.

¶44

3.The petitioner, thereafter, filed CP No.7/2007 under Section 33 C(2) of the Act. However, along with the application, the petitioner did not produce Ext.P4 order, correcting the operative portion of Ext.P3 award. On finding that the petitioner's name is not shown in Ext.P3 award, the Industrial Tribunal dismissed the application by Ext.P5. It is challenging this order, this writ petition is filed.

¶45

4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the first respondent and the learned Government Pleader.

¶46

5.As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner's name was shown in the award originally passed. However, there was an omission in the operative portion of the award in

¶47

W.P.(C) No. 28417 of 2008

¶48

..3..

¶49

referring the name of the petitioner, which was corrected by incorporating the petitioner's name vide Ext.P4 order. It appears that on account of the non-production of Ext.P4 order that the claim petition happened to be dismissed by the Industrial Court by Ext.P5. Therefore, this Court is of the view that Ext.P5 order is liable to be set aside and the matter requires consideration afresh.

¶50

6.However, the learned counsel for the first respondent management submitted that the company has been taken over by the Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation, Kollam. However, this matter has to be taken care of by the Labour Court, Kollam, while taking a fresh decision in the matter.

¶51

7.Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of as follows;

¶52

Ext.P5 order is set aside.

¶53

Parties shall appear before the Labour Court, Kollam on 28.11.2016.

¶54

The Labour Court, Kollam, shall take a fresh decision,

¶55

W.P.(C) No. 28417 of 2008

¶56

..4..

¶57

after adverting to the contentions of the first respondent that their undertaking has been taken over by the Kerala State Cashew Development

¶58

Corporation, Kollam.

¶59

Sd/- A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE

¶60

bka/-

Vijayakumari v. Urban Stancilas and Company

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijayakumari v. Urban Stancilas and Company

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

Aji S Vs R.G.Vinod

Moidu Haji Vs Joseph K.O.

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

Salam Vs Nooh P.P.

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

Kalladicode Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. NO.7489 Vs the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies