High Court dismissed instant writ petitions challenging the Labour Court award. The Court held back wages claim failed due to lack of specific pleadings and proof of gainful employment, relying on Deepali Gundu Surwase. Workman is entitled to benefits under the award.
Both writ petitions were dismissed; workman entitled to benefits per Labour Court award.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2022 / 2ND JYAISHTA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 4559 OF 2019
PETITIONER/S:
R.MURUGAN, CHAIRMAN, PRS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, (FORMERLY MARY MATHA COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY), PALIYODE, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL SRI.M.S.VIJAYACHANDRA ABABU
RESPONDENT/S:
1 N.O.PRATHEESH, MATHA HOUSE, PONKODE, CHERUVALLUR (P.O), KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU STATE, PIN - 629 152. 2 THE LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM, PIN - 691 013. BY ADV SRI.A.S.SHAMMY RAJ
OTHER PRESENT:
SR GP SRI JUSTIN JACOB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.05.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).8228/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
WP(C) NO. 4559 OF 2019 and conctd case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2022 / 2ND JYAISHTA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 8228 OF 2019
PETITIONER/S:
PRATHEESH N.O., AGED 33 YEARS S/O.NESAMONY, MATHA HOUSE, PONKODE, CHERUVALLUR P.O., KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU - 629 152.
BY ADV A S SHAMMY RAJ
RESPONDENT/S:
1 MURUKAN, CHAIRMAN, MARY MATHA COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, (NOW PRS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY), PALIYODU, DALUMUGHAM P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 125.
2 P.R.S.COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, PALIYODU, DALUMUGHAM P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 125.
BY ADVS. SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL SRI.M.S.VIJAYACHANDRA ABABU
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.05.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).4559/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 4559 OF 2019 and conctd case.
3
JUDGMENT
[WP(C) Nos.4559/2019, 8228/2019]
This order of mine shall dispose of two writ petitions W.P.(C)
No.4559 of 2019 titled as R.Murukan v. N.O Pratheesh and another and W.P.(C) No.8228 of 2019 titled as Pratheesh N.O v. Murukan and Another.
4
WP(C) NO. 4559 OF 2019 and conctd case.
executed a bond in favour of the workman for deposit of Rs.1,50,000/- to be utilized by the management as working capital of the institution. The workman accepted the terms and conditions; continued to work and became permanent employee. Even an amount was deducted from the salary for GPF and LIC. From 2016 onwards the management started paying the salary to the workman through bank, Vellarada Branch. Petitioner opened an account bearing No.11313 and as per the Bank statement the amount has been deposited. Even a salary certificate was issued by the competent authority. In the year 2008, ie., with effect from 5.6.2008, there had been a change in the management known as 'PRS College of Engineering and Technology; when the aforementioned management taken over the charge all the employees working with them continued except there were some dispute with 16 employees. Petitioner continued to draw the salary but from 10.9.2008 denied the employment. It is in that background raised the dispute before the labour officer where the management did not appear and the matter was
WP(C) NO. 4559 OF 2019 and conctd case. 5
referred to the labour court for adjudication.
WP(C) NO. 4559 OF 2019 and conctd case.
6
no documentary evidence has been placed on record regarding the employment or deposit of Rs.1,50,000/- as per the conditions of the bond. The salary certificate was also a forged document. The entire evidence was required to be looked into but the contents of cross examination in isolation cannot be a determining factor for answering the reference partly in favour of the workman. All the employees of the previous management was taken over except the dispute with 16 workers, which were resolved before the settlement officer and were absorbed in the department as evident from the appointment letters attached. The workman is not also entitled to reinstatement much less of the back wages and there was no averment with regard to the gainful employment.
WP(C) NO. 4559 OF 2019 and conctd case.
7
continue. The issuance of a certificate by the Employee Provident Fund is the testimony that the workman was the employee of the erstwhile management. In view of the stand of the management that all the employees were taken except the dispute with 16 persons referred leads to a conclusion that the workman was deemed to have been taken into service. Even if there is no pleadings with regard to the gainful employment or deposit of the 1.5 lakhs, the contents of the bond would reveal
that the workman would not have been permitted to continue had a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- been not deposited, thu s there is a presumption in favour of the workman. Allotment of PF Number is the testimony that the workman was in employment of the erstwhile management.
WP(C) NO. 4559 OF 2019 and conctd case.
8
(2013) 10 SCC 324 for claiming the back wages, the workman is required to specifically plead in the pleadings qua the gainful employment and then onus is upon the management to prove. If the management is able to discharge, then the onus is again shifted on the workman to prove, otherwise the presumption has to be drawn in favour of the workman . In the absence of any pleadings or the evidence, the onus never shifted upon the management and therefore the workman failed to prove the fact of the period he was out of job / was not gainfully employed and thus, in my view the claim of the back wages has rightly been rejected. As regards the refund of Rs.1,50,000/- the contents of the bond attached to the petition filed by the workman would not reveal that in case amount is not deposited, ie., there was a negative condition o f forgoing the employment. No material has been placed before the labour court or this Court for deposit of the said amount. Accordingly, the labour court rightly rejected the said claim.
WP(C) NO. 4559 OF 2019 and conctd case. 9
management, the witness of the management as noticed by the labour court categorically admitted the employment of the workman on t he rolls a fter taking over the management with effect from March 2008. The tenor and mode of the pleadings of the management would reveal that all the employees on the rolls of erstwhile management had been absorbed into the service except the dispute with 16 workmen, would lead to an irresistible conclusion since the workman was not the member
of that settlement, deemed to have been taken absorbed and denial of the employment subsequent on expiry of six months, the violation of the provisions of Section 25(f) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. No cogent reasons have come forth on record of not permitting the workman to discharge the duties. Withholding of the attendance register would also be a consideration for the labour court to draw adverse inference as envisaged under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act. The allotment of the PF number in favour of the workman is the testimony that the workman was on the rolls of the previous management. All these factors have been extensively
10
WP(C) NO. 4559 OF 2019 and conctd case.
examined by the labour court in arriving at a fair and just conclusio n. Such decision does not call for any interdiction or modification much less rectification. Award is perfectly legal and justified.
Both the writ petitions sans merit and are accordingly
dismissed. The workman is entitled to all the benefits as required in terms of the award of the labour court.
Sd/-
sab
AMIT RAWAL
JUDGE
WP(C) NO. 4559 OF 2019 and conctd case.
11
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8228/2019
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
| EXHIBIT P1 | TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 20/7/2002. |
|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P2 | TRUE COPY OF THE BOND EXECUTED BY THE THEN CHAIRMAN ON BEHALF OF THE INSTITUTION, DATED 20/7/2002. |
| EXHIBIT P3 | TRUE COPY OF THE SALARY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS. |
| EXHIBIT P4 | TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 24/3/2009 MADE BEFORE THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER. |
| EXHIBIT P5 | TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 9/6/2011 MADE BEFORE THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER. |
| EXHIBIT P6 | TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN THE SAID INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE DATED 17/4/2013. |
| EXHIBIT P7 | TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29/8/2013 UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, BEFORE THE EMPLOYEE'S PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, ON 29/8/2013. |
| EXHIBIT P8 | TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DATED 18/9/2013 ISSUED BY THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION. |
| EXHIBIT P9 | TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 5/4/2018 ON THE FILE OF LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM. |
| EXHIBIT P10 | TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 9/11/2018 GIVEN TO RESPONDENTS. |
| EXHIBIT P11 | TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 5/12/2018 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. |
WP(C) NO. 4559 OF 2019 and conctd case.
12
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT GIVEN BY PETITIONER BEFORE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ON 21/1/2019.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
| EXHIBIT | R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE 6.7.2006 |
SALARY CERTIFICATE DATED |
|---|---|---|
| EXHIBIT | R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE |
SALARY CERTIFICATE |
| EXHIBIT | R1(C) TRUE COPY OF THE ALONG WITH ENGLLI |
PETITION DATED 24.3.2009 SH TRANSLATION |
| EXHIBIT | R1(D) TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 2.8.2008 AL TRANSLATION |
MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT ONG WITH ENGLISH |
| EXHIBIT | R1(E) TRUE COPPY OF THE 5.8.2008 |
PROCEEDINGS DATED |
| EXHIBIT | R1(F) TRUE COPY OF THE 5.6.2008 |
DEED OF AGREEMENT DATED |
WP(C) NO. 4559 OF 2019 and conctd case.
13
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4559/2019
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 11.05.2011.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM STATEMENT/WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 17.04.2013.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 07.08.2013.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN I.D NO.21/2011 DATED 05.04.2018.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE SALARY CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY MARY MATHA COLLEGE OF ENGG. & TECHNOLOGY
ANNEXURE A: TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 20.7.2002
ANNEXURE B: TRUE COPY OF THE SALARY CERTIFICATE DATED 6.7.2006
ANNEXURE C: TRUE COPY OF THE SALARY CERTIFICATE
ANNEXURE D: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 24.3.2009 ALONG WITH ENGLLISH TRANSLATION
ANNEXURE E:TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT DATED 2.8.2008 ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION
ANNEXURE F: TRUE COPPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 5.8.2008
EXHIBIT R1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 20/3/2014
WP(C) NO. 4559 OF 2019 and conctd case.
14
| EXHIBIT | R1 TRUE COPY OF THE BANK PASS BOOK OF PETITIONER ISSUED FROM VIJAYA BANK, SHOWING THE DEPOSIT OF SALARY IN THE BANK ACCOUNT |
|---|---|
| Exhibit | R1(d) TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 28.12.2021, ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA |
| Exhibit | R1(e) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDIANCE DATED 20.0.2021, ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA |
| Exhibit | R1(f) TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER DATED 10.02.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN WPC BEFORE THE ORIGINAL PETITIONER |
| Exhibit | R1(g) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 08.03.2022, SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN WPC BEFORE THE ORIGINAL PETITIONER, ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION. |
3 issues framed by the court
Whether back wages are payable to a workman who was reinstated but not gainfully employed during the period of denial.
Whether the Labour Court's refusal to grant back wages and refund of bond amount was legally justified.
Whether the management's denial of employment after six months violated Section 25(f) of the Industrial Dispute Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) & Ors.Followed¶51
Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) & Ors. (2013) 10 SCC 324 · Who else cites this
R. Murukan
N.O. Pratheesh
Mary Matha College of Engineering and Technology (PRs College)
The Labour Court, Kollam
Amit Rawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
