Allowed

M/S.Poddar Plantations v. the Deputy Tahsildar(Revenue Recovery)

Kerala HC9 Dec 2016WP(C)/4768/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside orders of the Labour Court that held a termination illegal. While noting laches in prosecuting the case, the Court condoned the delay after the petitioner deposited Rs.3,00,000/. Consequently, the Labour Court was directed to retry the industrial dispute.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders are set aside; the Labour Court, Kannur is directed to retry the industrial dispute within four months.

M/S.Poddar Plantations Vs the Deputy… — 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

FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 4768 of 2013 (U) --------------------------ID 29/2002 of LABOUR COURT, KANNUR DATED 06-10-2005

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

M/S.PODDAR PLANTATIONS A DIVISION OF RIPON ESTATES LTD., RIPON ESTATE, MEPPADI, WAYANAD - 673 577, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER, PRAKASH C.K., S/O.C.KUNHIKELU NAIR.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SMT.GEETHA P.MENON SRI.R.ARUN KUMAR SRI.N.AJITH SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(REVENUE RECOVERY) VYTHIRI, WAYANAD, PIN - 673 576.

¶11

2. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, KALPETTA NORTH, WAYANAD 673 122

¶12

3. THE REGIONAL SECRETARY, ESTATE STAFF UNION OF SOUTH INDIA M.C.T.BUILDING, KALPETTA NORTH, WAYANAD - 673 122.

¶13

4. M.M.DEVAYYA, STAFF QUARTERS, RIPON ESTATE, RIPON POST, MEPPADI, WAYANAD - 673 577

¶14

5. P.ANUPAMAM, ADVOCATE, KALPETTA NORTH, WAYANAD - 673 122.

¶15

R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. S.GOPINATHAN R3 & 4 BY ADVS. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE (SR.) SRI.GEORGE MATHEWS R5 BY ADVS. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR SRI.P.C.GOPINATH SRI.S.NANDAGOPAL

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

MLG

¶18

WP(C).No. 4768 of 2013 (U)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶21

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

¶22

EXT.P-1	DATED 6.10.2005 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD OF THE LABOUR COURT, KANNUR IN INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO.29 OF 2002.
EXT.P-2	DATED 27.8.2010 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CLAIM PETITION NO.10 OF 2007 LABOUR COURT, KANNUR.
EXT.P-3	DATED 9.5.2011 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO RESPONDENT NO.5
EXT.P-4	DATED 8.8.2011 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO RESPONDENT NO.5
EXT.P-5	DATED 6.1.2012 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CLAIM PETITION NO.82 OF 2011 LABOUR COURT, KANNUR.
EXT.P-6	DATED 17.9.2012 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO RESPONDENT NO.5
EXT.P-7	DATED 15.10.2012 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO RESPONDENT NO.5
EXT.P-8	DATED 28.11.2012 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO RESPONDENT NO.5
EXT.P-9	DATED 19.1.2013 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE BAR COUNCIL OF KERALA.
EXT.P-10	DATED 8.2.2013 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO RESPONDENT NO.5
EXT.P-11	DATED 15.1.2013 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.D2-164/12/13/OM ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P-12	DATED 18.1.2013 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.D2-164/12-13/OM ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P-13	DATED 08/03/2013 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER A CENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MUPPAYINADU
EXT.P-14	DATED 08/03/2013 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE LOCAL DELIVERY BOOK MAINTAINED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P-15	DATED NIL TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER WITH HDFC
EXT.P-16	DATED 29/09/2013, TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE NO. III OF THE BAR COUNCIL OF KERALA.

¶23

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S TO JUDGE

MLG

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶28

W.P.(C) No. 4768 of 2013

¶29

Dated this the 9^th day of December, 2016

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

1.This writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P1, P2 & P5.

¶32

Ext.P1 is the award passed in an industrial dispute, referred for adjudicating whether termination of the service of one Davayya is justifiable or not. The Labour Court, Kannur, passed Ext.P1 award, holding that the termination of Sri.Davayya was illegal and he shall be reinstated in service with full backwages and continuity of service. This award was passed on 06.10.2005. Thereafter, a claim petition was filed, which was allowed vide Ext.P2 order dated 27.08.2010. It appears that another claim petition was also filed by the union as Claim Petition No.82/2011, which was also allowed vide Ext.P5 order dated 06.01.2012. The legality of Exts.P1, P2 & P5 is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶33

..2..

¶34

W.P.(C) No. 4768 of 2013

¶35

2.The main point urged before this Court is that the petitioner could not appear in all these cases as the advocate, who is arrayed as the 5^th respondent in this writ petition, engaged by the petitioner did not represent them before the court. It is also submitted that they have taken steps before the Bar Council to initiate action against the advocate, alleging misconduct.

¶36

3.This writ petition was filed on 18.02.2013 apparently when the petitioner received a notice under the Revenue Recovery Act. It is to be noted that the advocate was found guilty of misconduct under Ext.P16 in respect of a similar case by the Bar Council. Though this may not have a direct bearing in this case, nevertheless, the misconduct itself being raised as a sufficient cause by the writ petitioner, the court has to consider these aspects as well.

¶37

4.No doubt, as seen from the records, there are laches in prosecuting the case whether it is attributable to an

¶38

..3..

¶39

W.P.(C) No. 4768 of 2013

¶40

advocate or not. The petitioner's case is that the advocate failed to represent them in all those cases. It is also apparent from the records that in the impugned orders itself, it is stated that there was no representation on the part of the management. However, it is to be noted that there is a long delay in challenging the orders. Ext.P1 passed by the Labour Court, Kannur was on 06.10.2005. This was followed by Ext.P2 order dated 27.08.2010, which was also followed by Ext.P5 order dated 06.01.2012. The petitioner's case is that they were instructing the 5^th respondent to take steps against the ex parte order. In this regard, the petitioner has produced Exts.P6 to P8 & P10. It is also seen that there are some other letters issued by the petitioner produced as Ext.P3 as early as in the year, 2011. Thus, it is to be concluded that the petitioner was prosecuting the matter to get the ex parte order set aside at least in the year, 2011, when Ext.P2 order was passed. The petitioner's case is that

¶41

W.P.(C) No. 4768 of 2013

¶42

..4..

¶43

they were ignorant about the original award passed as per Ext.P1.

¶44

5.This Court, on 11.10.2013, passed the following order;

¶45

“It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs) had been deposited before the 1^st respondent. Since the amount is not deposited before the Labour Court, respondents 4 and 5 is not in a position to withdraw the amount deposited. Hence, there will be a direction to the first respondent to transfer the amount deposited to the 2^nd respondent within a period of 15 days and the 2^nd respondent shall pay the amount to the 4^th respondent on submitting necessary application.”

¶46

6.Complying with the interim order by depositing a sum of 3,00,000/- by the petitioner, this Court is of the view₹ that laches, if any, on the part of the petitioner can be condoned. It is also submitted that the workmen have already withdrawn the amount. This Court is of the view that a cost of 1,00,000/- can be imposed on the₹ petitioner and that would come out of the amount already paid as 3,00,000/-. The balance of 2,00,000/-₹ ₹ already appropriated by the workman would be depend upon the outcome of the labour dispute and other proceedings.

¶47

W.P.(C) No. 4768 of 2013

¶48

..5..

¶49

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

¶50

The impugned orders are set aside.

¶51

The Labour Court, Kannur is directed to retry the industrial dispute.

¶52

The petitioner and respondents 3 & 4 shall appear before the Labour Court on 05.01.2017.

¶53

The Labour Court shall dispose of the dispute within a period of four months thereafter.

¶54

It is made clear that the disbursal of 2,00,000/- to₹ the workman would be subject to the outcome of the dispute.

¶55

Sd/- A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE

¶56

bka/-

M/S.Poddar Plantations v. the Deputy Tahsildar(Revenue Recovery)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Poddar Plantations v. the Deputy Tahsildar(Revenue Recovery)

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

A.Abdulla Haji Vs Joint Registrar of Co-Operative So,Kannu

Manheri Lakshmi Amma Vs Registrar

M.R.Kesavan Vs State of Kerala and Another

P.M.Abdul Nazar Vs Deputy Tahsildar (Rr)

Libu.K.Lukose Vs the District Executive Officer

Puthukara Vijayan Vs Biju