Allowed

P.P.Mohammed Ashraf v. Kozhikode Primary Co-Op.Agricultural & Rural Development Bank Ltd.

Kerala HC15 Feb 2018WP(C)/3203/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner retired employees challenged the Labour Court's dismissal of their service claim. The High Court ruled the dismissal wrong as retired employees can claim accrued service benefits under established precedent.

What did the court decide?

The Labour Court directed to reconsider the claim afresh following statutory procedure. No order as to costs.

P.P.Mohammed Ashraf Vs Kozhikode Primary… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 26TH MAGHA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 3203 of 2013

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1 P.P.MOHAMMED ASHRAF S/O.MOHAMMED KOYA, 38/1154-D, THANAI, EDAKKAD P.O., KOZHIKODE-673005.

¶8

2 K.KUNHIMAYIN, S/O.AHAMED, KINATTINGARATH HOUSE, PARANNUR P.O., NARIKKUNI, KOZHIKODE-673585.

¶9

BY ADVS.SMT.A.K.PREETHA

¶10

SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. KOZHIKODE PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PUTHIYARA, CALICUT-673004.

¶13

2. THE LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE-673001.

¶14

R1 BY ADVS. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER SRI.ARUN MATHEW VADAKKAN R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JESTIN MATHEW

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

mbr/

¶17

WP(C).No. 3203 of 2013

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶20

--------------	-------
EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS)38/2011/CO-OPERATION DATED 26.2.2011.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF CLAIM PETITION NO.6/2012.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN OBJECTION IN C.P.NO.6/2012.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED IN C.P.NO.6/2012.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 2.7.2012 PASSED IN C.P.NO.6/2012.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP.(LC)NO.2469/2012.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.9.2012 IN C.P.NO.6/2012.

¶21

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL --------------------/TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE

¶22

mbr/

¶23

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

¶24

--------------------------------------WP(C) No.3203 of 2013

¶25

Dated this the 15^th day of February, 2018

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

The petitioners say that they were employees of the 1^st respondent-Kozhikkode Primary Co-operative Agricultural & Rural Development Bank Ltd., which is a Co-operative Society incorporated under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. They aver that they have retired from service and that after retirement they filed Ext.P2 claim petition before the Labour Court, Kozhikkode claiming certain benefits, that were allegedly due to them from the 1^st respondent, while they were in service.

¶28

The Labour Court, however, through Ext.P7 order, which is impugned herein, dismissed the claim holding that the definition of workmen under Section 2(S) of the Industrial Disputes Act would not cover those who had retired from service,

¶29

¶30

WP(C) No.3203 of 2013

¶31

but covers only those who are retrenched, dismissed or discharged. The petitioners say that this view of the Labour Tribunal is contrary to law and they rely on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Thomas P.K. & Others v. Sahithya Pravarthaka Co-operative Society, Kottayam & Others [2014 (3) KHC 195 (DB)] to contend that even retired employees are entitled to make a claim with respect to the benefits that had accrued to them while they were in service.

¶32

I have heard Sri.C. Anil Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 2^nd respondent. There is no representation on behalf of the 1^st respondent Society and I, therefore, do not have the advantage of hearing the version of the Society.

¶33

The facts involved in this writ petition are not too many. The petitioners say that they are retired employees of the 2^nd respondent Society and their claim, as voiced through Ext.P2, is regarding certain benefits they claim to have accrued to them while they were in service. This claim was considered by the Labour Court but rejected solely finding that the claim is not

¶34

¶35

WP(C) No.3203 of 2013

¶36

maintainable, since the petitioners have already retired from service and, therefore, cannot be considered as being employees under the sweep of Section 2 (S) of the Industrial Disputes Act. As rightly pointed out by Sri.C. Anil Kumar, this question of law has already been answered in favour of the petitioners in the judgment in Thomas P.K. [supra], wherein a Division Bench of this Court has emphatically declared that the term “workmen' occurring in Section 33(2)(C) cannot be guided by Section 2(S), but should be guided by the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Everstee v. District Labour Officer [1999 KHC 379] and N.B.C. Corporation v. Pritam Singh [1972 KHC 444]. In view of this declaration also it is indubitable that Ext.P7 order of the Labour Court cannot stand scrutiny of law and deserves to be set aside. I do so.

¶37

Consequentially, the Labour Court, Kozhikkode is directed to take up C.P. No.6 of 2012 and consider the same in terms of law afresh, after following the mandatory procedure under the applicable Statutes, Rules and Regulations and to dispose of the same.

¶38

¶39

WP(C) No.3203 of 2013

¶40

This writ petition is thus ordered as above. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I make no order as to costs and I

¶41

direct the parties to suffer their respective costs.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE.

¶44