Dismissed

The Manager, Wallardie Estate v. the Genral Secretary, Peermade Thottam T

Kerala HC29 Mar 2016WP(C)/36771/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an Industrial Tribunal award. The Tribunal found a workman was wrongfully denied employment as a watchman. The Court held the Tribunal's findings were factual and unrevisable, but ordered the employer to pay backwages since reinstatement was not feasible due to the workman's age.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; placement of respondents with no cost; employer directed to pay backwages as per Tribunal without reinstatement.

The Manager, Wallardie Estate Vs the Genral… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/9TH CHAITHRA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 36771 of 2010 (V)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ID 36/2006 of INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, IDUKKI

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

THE MANAGER, WALLARDIE ESTATE, HARRISONS MALAYALAM LIMITED, VANDIPERIYAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 533.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

THE GENERAL SECRETARY, PEERMEDU THOTTAM THOZHILALI UNION (CITU), P.R.CENTRE, VANDIPERIYAR P.O., 685 533.

¶12

THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, IDUKKI, PEERMEDU, 685 531.

¶13

R1 BY ADV. SMT.A.K.PREETHA R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.R.RAJESH

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-03-2016, THE COURT ON 29.03.2016 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No. 36771 of 2010 (V)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶18

P1: TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 27.03.2010 IN ID NO.36/2006 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶19

P2: TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE TO ESTATE WORKMEN IN KERALA.

¶20

P3: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT DATED 29.09.2008.

¶21

P4: TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM STATEMENT DATED 09.11.2006 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN ID 36/2006 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶22

P5: TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 01.01.2007 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN ID NO.36/2006.

¶23

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

¶24

/True Copy/

¶25

P.A. to Judge

¶26

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶27

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶28

W.P.(C).No.36771 of 2010

¶29

= = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 29^th day of March, 2016

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

1.This writ petition is filed by the Manager, Wallardie estate challenging Exhibit P1 award issued by the Industrial Tribunal, Idukki, under the Industrial Disputes Act.

¶32

2.The dispute was with regard to denial of employment to Sri.Ponnachan from 4.11.2004. The dispute was raised by the General Secretary, High Range Estate Labour Union (AITUC), Reg.No.103/65, H.O.,Peerumedu. However, in the writ petition the 1^st respondent arrayed is the General Secretary, Peermedu Thottam Thozhilali Union (CITU).

¶33

3.It was the allegation of the Union that the workman was engaged as a watcher in No.2 Division of Wallardie estate for 22 years. When he refused to make false complaints against office bearers of trade unions, he was denied employment from 04.11.2004. No work was provided to him. The management

¶34

W.P.(C).No.36771/10

¶35

¶36

contended that the workman had been employed as a general worker and was liable to do all types of works as there is no post of watchman in the plantation labour committee settlement. The management was ready to give him employment as a general worker and it was only because of his adamant stand that he would work only as watcher that the dispute arose.

¶37

4.After considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the Industrial Tribunal held that the workman had been working as a watcher for very many years and had been receiving the wage differential on a regular basis apart from his wages as a general worker. It was found that the management had failed in providing any reasonable cause for the denial of employment as watchman and reinstatement with 50% backwages was ordered. This award is under challenge on the ground that there was no denial of employment and the management was always ready and willing to the workman as a general worker. The award of 50% backwages is also challenged on the ground that it is unsupported by any reason.

¶38

W.P.(C).No.36771/10

¶39

¶40

5.Heard Sri.Benny P.Thomas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.A.K.Preetha, learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent.

¶41

Having considered the arguments advanced on either side as well as the pleadings and the recitals in the award of the 2^nd respondent, I am of the view that the 2^nd respondent has given anxious consideration to the issue on hand. The impleadment of the 1^st respondent, who is a union totally unconnected with the dispute is a fatal flaw in the writ petition. Going into the merits of the case as well, I find that what is under challenge is essentially a finding of fact recorded by the Industrial Tribunal. All the documentary and oral evidence adduced by the Management as well as the testimony of the workmen's witness was taken into account by the Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal thereafter entered a well reasoned finding of fact that there was denial of employment. Reinstatement with 50% backwages was ordered.

¶42

W.P.(C).No.36771/10

¶43

¶44

It is trite law that the power of this Court to interfere with the finding of fact made by the Industrial Tribunal as well as in matters of award of punishment is extremely limited. From a consideration of the pleadings and materials on record in this case and the contention of the parties, I find no illegality or arbitrariness in Ext.P1 award. The writ petition therefore fails and is accordingly dismissed. It is submitted that the workman has already crossed the age of superannuation and no question of reinstatement arises now. In the above circumstances, the management shall pay the backwages as directed by the Tribunal to the workman concerned.

¶45

sd/- Anu Sivaraman, Judge

¶46

The Manager, Wallardie Estate v. the Genral Secretary, Peermade Thottam T

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Manager, Wallardie Estate v. the Genral Secretary, Peermade Thottam T

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

K.Divakaran Vs K.Ravikumaran

Mazhuvanor Grama Panchayath Vs Sinthil K.M.

T.v.Susheela Vs State of Kerala

Kunnummal Pavithran Vs the Village Officer

Anand Elamon Vs State of Kerala

C.P.Michael Vs the Lok Ayukatha