Disposed

Ishabi v. the District Collector, Thrissur and Ors.

Kerala HC26 May 2016WP(C)/9854/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the court directed the District Labour Officer to effect recovery of minimum wage arrears awarded in an industrial tribunal order, despite the award's compensation being paid. The order specifies a timeline for compliance to benefit the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Directed the District Labour Officer to recover minimum wage arrears under the P3 order within two months and disburse it to the petitioner.

Ishabi Vs the District Collector, Thrissur and Ors. — Kerala HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2016/5TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 9854 of 2011 (F)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ISAHBI, AGED 34 YEARS, D/O.MOHAMMED, KARUPPAM VEETTIL HOUSE, KADAPPURAM P.O., ANCHANGADI, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.A.JAYASANKAR SRI.MANU GOVIND

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-680 003.

¶11

2.DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER,CIVIL STATION, COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S, COMPENSATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-680 003.

¶12

3.THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-680 003.

¶13

4.THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR - 680 506.

¶14

5.THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KADAPPURAM VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR-680 506.

¶15

6.SRI.C.K.RADHAKRISHNAN, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT, S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, CHETTIPPA HOUSE, ERATTIPUZHA, BLANGAD P.O. - 680 506.

¶16

R1 TO R5 BY SENIOR GOVT.PLEADER SRI.E.M.ABDUL KHADIR

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

mbr/

¶19

WP(C).No. 9854 of 2011 (F)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS:

¶22

EXT. P1	: TRUE COPY OF AWARD DATED 15.3.2002 IN ID NO.40/2000 ON THE FILES OF IT, PALAKKAD.
EXT. P2	: TRUE COPY OF PETITIONER’S APPLICATION DATED 28.9.2002 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT. P3	: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 5.7.2006 IN MWA 20/1999 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT. P4	: TRUE COPY OF PETITIONER’S APPLICATION DATED 3.10.2006 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT. P5	: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 1.10.2006 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT. P6	: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 11.10.2006 FORWARDING PETITIONER’S REPRESENTATION TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

P.V.ASHA, J.

W.P.(C) No.9854 of 2011

¶28

Dated this the 26^th day of May, 2016

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

The petitioner filed this writ petition aggrieved by the inaction on the part of respondents 1 to 5 to effect recovery of the amount due to her as per Exts.P1 award and P3 order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad and Deputy Labour Commissioner, Thrissur respectively. As per Ext.P1 award, the Industrial Tribunal found that denial of employment to her by the 6^th respondent was illegal and declared that she is entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) towards compensation. Despite her application for execution of the award, the payment was not effected. She had approached the Deputy Labour Commissioner for realisation of minimum wages from the 6^th respondent filing M.W.A.No.20 of 1999 and by Ext.P3 order dated 5^th July 2006, the 6^th respondent was directed to pay a sum of Rs.9,368/-(Rupees Nine thousand three hundred and sixty eight only), towards arrears of minimum wages, failing which it was ordered that the amount would be realised by initiating revenue recovery proceedings.

¶31

W.P.(C) No.9854 of 2011

¶32

:2:

¶33

When the writ petition came up for admission, this Court passed an interim order on 7.6.2011 directing the District Labour Officer, Thrissur to take steps to recover the amount due to the petitioner in terms of Ext.P1 award and Ext.P3 order and to prosecute the 6^th respondent within a period of two weeks.

¶34

The petitioner submits that the amount due to her under Ext.P1 award alone was paid subsequent to the interim order.

¶35

The learned Government Pleader, handed over the instructions received from the District Labour Officer, as per which, the 6^th respondent produced proof of remittance of full amount due to the petitioner on 27.7.2011 and therefore action under Section 29 of the Industrial Dispute Act was not required. But the direction of this Court in its order dated 7.6.2011 was to take action to realise the amount due in terms of Ext.P1 award as well as Ext.P3 order. But the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amount due under Ext.P3 order is not paid to her so far and no action is taken on her application-Ext.P4 to execute the same.

¶36

Under the above circumstances, there will be a direction

¶37

W.P.(C) No.9854 of 2011

¶38

:3:

¶39

to the District Labour Officer, 3^rd respondent, to see that appropriate action is taken to recover the amount covered by Ext.P3 and to disburse the same to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶40

Sd/- P.V.ASHA JUDGE

¶41

rkc

Ishabi v. the District Collector, Thrissur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ishabi v. the District Collector, Thrissur and Ors.

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

The Manager, Model Central School Vs the State of Kerala and Others

Suresh M. Vs State of Kerala

Seetharama Kadamannaya Vs the Land Revenue Commissioner and Anr.

Lekshmikutty Amma Vs State of Kerala

V.Velayudhan Chettiar Vs Kseb

Gopalakrishnan.K Vs Superintendent of Police,Crime Branch