Allowed

Smt.Geetha Narayanan v. the Labour Court, Ernakulam

Kerala HC15 Dec 2016WP(C)/36919/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a writ petition setting aside the Labour Court's award. The court held that it is for the Labour Court to consider if the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act provides a mechanism to determine jurisdiction before a final conclusion of no jurisdiction is reached.

What did the court decide?

Impugned award set aside; matter remitted to Labour Court for fresh consideration.

Smt.Geetha Narayanan Vs the Labour Court, Ernakulam — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 36919 of 2015 (L)

¶6

I.D.NO. 9/2013 OF THE LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S) :

¶8

SMT.GEETHA NARAYANAN, AGED 51 YEARS, W/O. NARAYANAN, CUPPLINGATTU MANA, CHELAMATTOM, OKKAL POST, PERUMBAVOOR, PIN 683 550, ERNAKULAM.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.K.A.HAZAN

¶10

SMT.M.M.FATHIMA JALEENA SRI.V.J.JAMES

¶11

SRI.ARUN PAUL (KAPRASSERY)

¶12

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶13

1. THE LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM, PIN- 682 031.

¶14

2. THE CHELAMATTOM DEVASWOM, CHELAMATTOM, OKKAL P.O, PERUMBAVOOR, PIN 683 550, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT, CHELAMATTAM DEVASWAM BHARANA SAMITHI, OKKAL P.O, PIN 683 550.

¶15

3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR & REHABILITATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 001.

¶16

R1 & R3 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. S.GOPINATHAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Msd.

¶19

WP(C).No. 36919 of 2015 (L)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶22

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE MEMO DATED 10-10-2011 ISSUED
	TO THE PETITIONER.

¶23

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 13-10-2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROPOSAL FOR TERMINATION DATED 17-10-2011 SERVED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVT, ORDER NO. G.O(P) 552/2013 DATED 23-03-2013. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 12-08-2015 PASSED IN I.D NO. 9/2013 BY THE LABOUR CORT, ERNAKULAM.

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶30

W.P.(C) No. 36919 of 2015

¶31

Dated this the 15^th day of December, 2016

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

1.The short issue in this writ petition is with regard to a

¶34

finding in Ext.P5 award of the Labour Court, Ernakulam, that the dispute between the employee of Sreeekrishna Swamy Temple of Chelamattam and Chelamattam Dewaswom is not tenable as the labour court has no jurisdiction.

¶35

2.At the outset, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, who was an employee of the temple, that the labour court entered into such a finding without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. It is submitted that the Labour Court heard the matter on the preliminary issue of the propriety and validity of the domestic enquiry and came out with the award, holding that the labour court has no jurisdiction in the light of a Division Bench decision of

¶36

W.P.(C) No. 36919 of 2015

¶37

..2..

¶38

this Court in Cherinjumpatty Thampuratty v. State

¶39

of Kerala [2004 (3) KLT 303].

¶40

3.The learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent Dewaswom, would argue that an employee of the temple cannot be treated as an employee of the industry; and therefore, the labour court award has to be sustained.

¶41

4.The issue to be decided now is with regard to the jurisdiction of the labour court and not on the issue whether the employer is an industry or not. The question depends upon the nature of the statute, under which the issue is referred.

¶42

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that Cherinjumpatty Thampuratty 's (cited supra) case

¶43

was decided on the premise that it may not be covered by the Hindu Religious Charitable Endowments Act, 1951. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, but, this would apply only to the Malabar area and insofar as the matter is covered by the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act,

¶44

..3..

¶45

W.P.(C) No. 36919 of 2015

¶46

there is no prohibition in entertaining the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act by the labour court. Under the Hindu Religious Charitable Endowments Act, this Court, in Cherinjumpatty Thampuratty 's (cited supra) case, held that the labour court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate such a labour dispute.

¶47

This Court is of the view that it is a matter for the labour court to consider whether there is any machinery provided in terms of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act in order to hold whether the labour court has jurisdiction to decide the matter in the light of the decision in Cherinjumpatty Thampuratty 's(cited supra) case.

¶48

7.As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this is a matter to be remitted back to the Labour Court, Ernakulam, for consideration afresh. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, as follows;

¶49

The impugned award is set aside.

¶50

W.P.(C) No. 36919 of 2015

¶51

..4..

¶52

The parties shall appear before the Labour Court, Ernakulam on 10.01.2017.

¶53

It is also open for the labour court to consider the objection raised by the learned counsel for the Devaswom that the temple is not an industry as referable under the Industrial Disputes Act.

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE

¶56

bka/-

Smt.Geetha Narayanan v. the Labour Court, Ernakulam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Geetha Narayanan v. the Labour Court, Ernakulam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Dentcare Dental Lab (Pvt) Ltd. Vs Mr. Mohammed Ismail.K.M

Shekharan P.A Vs Vincen M.Paul

Ramanika Jewellery Vs the Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad

Josekutty John @ Jimmy Vs Arya

All Kerala Security Services Employees Association, Intuc Vs the H.R.Manager, G4S - Secure Solutions (India) Private Limited

K.N.Raghavan Vs P.v.Vijayalakshmi