Disposed

V.B.Asokan v. Union of India

Kerala HC13 Feb 2020WP(C)/2653/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed respondent employers to pay wage arrears to petitioners, contract workers, in four equal installments within specified timelines, ensuring contractors paid dues first, with liberty for prosecution proceedings upon default.

What did the court decide?

Payment of total wage arrears in four equal installments by 13.03.2020 and subsequent 10th of each month; first priority for wages and statutory dues before contractor payments.

V.B.Asokan Vs Union of India — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 24TH MAGHA, 1941 WP(C).No.2653 OF 2020(F)

¶5

PETITIONERS:

¶6

1 V.B.ASOKAN S/O.V.N.BALAN, VADAERIKATTIL HOUSE, MUNDOOR PO, THRISSUR.

¶7

2 T.HARIDASAN, S/O.K.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, THRIKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PERINGOD PO, (VIA) KOOTTANAD, PALAKKAD-679535.

¶8

3 MURALIDHARAN NAIR,

¶9

S/O.C.P.NAIR, MURALIGEETHAM HOUSE, PALLATH LINE, THRISSUR-680010.

¶10

4 P.S.BINOJ, S/O.SREENIVASAN, PANAKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, THRITHALLOOR PO, THRISSUR-680619.

¶11

5 K.R.RAJAN, S/O.K.K.RAGHAVAN, KAKKANATTU HOUSE, KANDASSAMKADAVU, THRISSUR-680613.

¶12

6 BIBIN V.V., S/O.VELAYUDHAN V.V., VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MADATHUMPADI, POYYA (VIA), THRISSUR-680733.

¶13

7 C.D.JOY, S/O.DEVASSY C.P., CHITTILAPPILLY HOUSE, PERAMANGALAM PO, THRISSUR-680545.

¶14

8 FENIL FRANCIC, S/O.T.R.FRANCIS, THATTILMANDY HOUSE, PARAPPUKKARA PO, THRISSUR-680310.

¶15

9 M.G.THOMSON, S/O.M.I.GEORGE, MUKKATUKULAM HOUSE, KARIKKAD PO, THRISSUR-680519.

¶16

10 M.S.SASIKUMAR , S/O.M.S.NAIR, MANGALATH HOUSE, MULLAKKARA, MANNUTHY PO, THRISSUR-680651.

¶17

WP(C).No.2653 OF 2020 2

¶18

11 ALEX NELSON P., S/O.P.DEVADASAN, PUDUKADY HOUSE, (VIA) PULINCHODU, RAMAVARMAPURAM, THRISSUR-680631.

¶19

12 GOPAKUMAR, S/O.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, KADAMUKKUL HOUSE, MURIYAD PO, THRISSUR-680683.

¶20

BY ADVS.

¶21

SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA

¶22

RESPONDENTS:

¶23

1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, WEST BLOCK NO.4, RK PURAM, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶24

2 THE BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, (A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISE), REPRESENTED BY CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, KERALA CIRCLE, THRISSUR-695001.

¶25

3 THE CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, CORPORATE OFFICE, 8TH FLOOR, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶26

4 THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (ADMN), BHARATH SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, PICHU IYER JUNCTION, THRISSUR DISTRICT-688001.

¶27

5 M/S CITY SERVICES, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, PRABHAKARAN VELLOOR, MARAR ROAD, THRISSUR.

¶28

6 M/S HESAL ENGINEERING SERVICES, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, MAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682025.

¶29

SRI.SAJI VARGHESE, SC SRI. MATHEWS K PHILIP, SC

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

WP(C).No.2653 OF 2020 3

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

The petitioners herein have been engaged by the respondents 5 and

¶34

6 as contract workers to carry out infrastructure maintenance in various institutions/offices of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited in Thrissur District. The grievance of the petitioners is that the wages due to them from the month of February, March, July and August 2019 have not been paid by respondents 2 to 4, who are the principal employer, to respondents 5 and 6. They have approached this Court seeking the following relief:

¶35

“i). to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction directing the respondents 2 to 4 to ensure that the admissible wages and other components due and payable to the petitioners for the months of February, March, July and August of 2019 and the current wages is paid within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court;

¶36

2. Heard Sri.K.Mohanakannan, the learned counsel appearing for

¶37

the petitioners and Sri.Mathews K.Philip, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4.

¶38

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that

¶39

WP(C).No.2653 OF 2020 4

¶40

denial of wages to the petitioners is an oppressive practice. He contends that the petitioners are reeling in grave financial hardship and prays for issuance of necessary directions to keep their life afloat.

¶41

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 asserts that they are under financial hardship and all steps are being taken to clear the wage arrears. However, on instructions, it is submitted that it is not the intention of the respondents 2 to 4, as the principal employers to deny lawful wages to their contractors and workers. It is submitted that the wage arrears due can be paid in installments, if such indulgence is granted.

¶42

Having perused the records and after considering the submissions advanced, I am of the considered view that this petition can be disposed of by issuing the following directions:

¶43

a) Respondents 2 to 4 are directed to pay the total wage arrears due to the petitioners in four equal installments, first of which shall be payable on 13.03.2020 and followed up on the 10^th day of every succeeding month.

¶44

(b) Respondents 2 to 4 shall be obliged to ensure that the amounts paid by them to the respondents 5 and 6 are first accounted for by paying wage arrears and other statutory dues of the workers.

¶45

¶46

WP(C).No.2653 OF 2020 5

¶47

direction, the petitioners will be at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings which may include prosecution proceedings under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970.

¶48

This writ petition is disposed of.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶51

JUDGE

¶52

sru

¶53

WP(C).No.2653 OF 2020 6

¶54

APPENDIX

¶55

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶56

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.35599/2019 DATED 9.1.2020.

¶57

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL

V.B.Asokan v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.B.Asokan v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Sreenidhi Towers Private Limited Vs the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Santhosh K.A. Vs State of Kerala

Suresh U.M.. Vs the District Executive Officer

Muhammed Asarudheen Vs State of Kerala

Visobh K.v., Vs State of Kerala

Dinesh Chandran Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner