Partly allowed

Khadi and Village Industries Commission v. K.R.Peter

Kerala HC15 Nov 2022WP(C)/9619/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a Labour Court order re-fixing salaries and calculating compensation for illegal termination. The High Court held that allowances are part of wages and directed the petitioner to pay the balance compensation after deducting earned back wages, partly allowing the writ.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to pay Net Balance Amount within two months failing which interest at 6.5% shall apply.

Khadi and Village Industries Commission Vs… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 15^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 24TH KARTHIKA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 9619 OF 2016

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS PROJECT MANAGER, (JAWAHAR) CENTRAL SILVER PLANT, KUTTOOR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680013.

¶8

BY ADV SRI.LEGY ABRAHAM

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 K.R.PETER KANJIRATHINGAL HOUSE, PARAKADAVU P.O., VIA KURUMASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683579. 2 THE LABOUR COURT ERNAKULAM. OPPOSITE HIGH COURT, KOCHI - 682 031. BY ADVS. SRI.ASHWIN SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.A.JAYASANKAR SRI.MANU GOVIND SMT.B.MEERA SRI.S.SABARINADH SMT.RASHMI.K.M., SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) No.9619/2016

JUDGMENT

Proceedings in C.P.No.37 of 2012 under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, in pursuance to the award dated 28.08.2006 in I.D.No.125 of 1991 quantifying the amount of compensation, has been assailed on behalf of the petitioner – management.

¶16

The case set up by the workman before the Labour Court was that he had rendered a number of years in the establishment, but one fine day, was allegedly terminated from service on 05.09.1986 resulting into I.D.No.125 of 1991 and an award whereby the termination of the respondent workman was held to be illegal. Management was directed to reinstate the workman with continuous service and 25% of back wages. Management preferred a Writ Petition which was dismissed by this Court and also Writ Appeal. Since the petitioner did not comply with the award, proceeding under Section 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act was initiated.

¶17

During the pendency of the proceedings, Labour Court appointed an expert to compute the amount due to the claimant by re-fixation of the salary and allowance and submit a report. Vide report dated 02.04.2014, it was reported that the workman

¶18

WP(C) No.9619/2016

¶19

¶20

remained out of service with effect from 05.09.1986 to 17.02.2014, an amount of Rs.27,38,504/- was due by way of arrears of salary and allowances.

¶21

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the arrears and allowance also includes the allowance of house rent, transport allowance and washing allowance amounting to Rs.2,62,485/- as noticed in paragraph 16

¶22

of the award which cannot be considered to be backwages as it only pertains to basic salary i.e., not other emoluments. It is also submitted that there is nothing on the record to show the wages or the salary was ever taken into consideration by the establishment much less is against the definition of the ‘Basic wages’.

¶23

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the workman opposed the aforementioned contention by submitting that the said amount has rightly been included, for, had he remained in job he would have been entitled to the same. No serious objections have been filed in the report except with regard to certain wages which have been declined.

¶24

I have heard the counsel for the parties and appraised

¶25

the paper book.

¶26

In paragraphs 16 and 17, the Labour Court while

¶27

WP(C) No.9619/2016

¶28

¶29

assessing the compensation due to the petitioner held as follows:

¶30

“16. It is evident from the arrear statement prepared by the project manager of the opposite party that the wages thereon takes the house rent allowance, traveling allowance and washing allowance also. But in the verification of expert appointed by this Court, it is seen stated that the compensatory allowance would not be allowed on the grounds stated therein and that the same reads as under : a.House rent allowance (less first 6 months) : 1,64,695.00 b. Transport allowance : 89,915.00 c. Washing allowance : 7,875.00 Total : 2,62,485.00

¶31

However, it is categorically clear from the calculation statement of the project manager of the opposite party that the wages in the establishment takes those three components also. There is nothing on record to show that wages or salary in the establishment does not take in the above three components. It is pertinent to note that nothing is seen tendered by the opposite party management to take the court into confidence that the wages as shown in Ext.C1 report does not take the three components stated therein namely house rent allowance, travelling allowance and washing allowance. If that be the situation, I do not find any reason to set apart and discard those components from the wages due to the petitioner.

¶32

17. Now from the facts and circumstances herein above stated, it is abundantly clear that towards the arrears of back wages, the petitioner workman herein is entitled to get a sum of Rs.15,25,219/- i.e., Rs.2,55,922/- being the arrears of 25% back wages for the period from 1.9.1987 to 31.1.2007, Rs.12,69,297/- being the arrears of salary for the period from 1.2.2007 to 31.10.2012. It is an admitted fact that towards the arrears of wages, the management had already tendered a cheque for Rs.36,440/- and that the petitioner had encashed the same under protest also. It that be so, the said amount is liable to be deducted from the total amount due to the petitioner as herein above stated. Now on deduction of the same, the balance due to the petitioner would come to a sum of Rs.14,88,779/- and that the petitioner is entitled to get the same from the opposite party management.”

¶33

The word basic wages as ordered by the Labour Court to be paid to

¶34

the workman in terms of money was 25% of backwages. The amount of Rs.2,62,485/- was not included in backwages, the same

¶35

WP(C) No.9619/2016

¶36

¶37

is ordered to be deducted from the total compensation and the petitioner is directed to pay the balance amount within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment, failing which it will entail interest at the rate of 6.5%.

¶38

With the aforementioned modification, Writ Petition stands

¶39

partly allowed.

¶40

Sd/AMIT RAWAL JUDGE

csl

WP(C) No.9619/2016

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9619/2016

¶45

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶46

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN C.P NO.37/2012 DATED 16.9.2015 OF THE LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM.

Khadi and Village Industries Commission v. K.R.Peter

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khadi and Village Industries Commission v. K.R.Peter

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

Mary Vasantha Vs 1. Additional District Magistrate

Santhamma Jose, Vs Annamma Alexander

Nisha P.T., Vs Kandoth Nallakandi Sathyabhama

Rema K.V Vs Andrews

Surendradas Vs State of Kerala

Antony. a. J Vs Union of India