Dismissed

The Director v. a. Pradheepan

Kerala HC2 Aug 2023WA/678/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed an intra-court appeal against a Single Judge modifying a Labour Court Award. The court held that compensation of Rs. 1 lakh was just and equitable in lieu of reinstatement and retrenchment costs as the workman had attained superannuation age, and it did not find valid grounds to interfere further.

What did the court decide?

Time of two months granted to the appellant to pay the dues as per the modified award.

The Director Vs a. Pradheepan — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1945

¶7

WA NO. 678 OF 2022

¶8

JUDGMENT DATED 2.3.2022 IN WP(C) 21402/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶9

APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN WPC

¶10

THE DIRECTOR

¶11

KERALA INSTITUTE OF TOURISM AND TRAVEL STUDIES (KITTS)
RESIDENCY COMPOUND, THYCAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN –
695014, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
SRI. UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL-SR. GP

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN WPC

¶13

1SHRI.A. PRADHEEPAN GREESHMAM, PANGOD VENGANOOR P.O
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695522

¶14

2 LABOUR COURT KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY BY ADV S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI

¶15

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.08.2023, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WA.678/2022

¶17

..1..

¶18

ALEXANDER THOMAS & C.JAYACHANDRAN, JJ.

¶19

W.A.No.678 of 2022

¶20

[arising out of the judgment dated 02.03.2022 in W.P.(C).No.21402/2021]

¶21

Dated this the 2^nd day of August, 2023

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Alexander Thomas, J.

¶24

This intra court appeal instituted under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, is directed against the impugned judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge on 02.03.2022, disposing of the instant writ petition, W.P.(C).21402 of 2021. The appellant herein is the petitioner in the W.P.(C). The respondents herein are the respondents in the W.P.(C).

¶25

Heard Sri.B.Unnikrishna Kaimal, learned Senior Government

¶26

Pleader appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Mohammed Al Rafi, learned counsel appearing for R1 (workman). Since R2 (Labour Court) is an adjudicating Forum, notice to that party is dispensed with.

¶27

3. The prayer in the instance W.P.(C) is as follows :-

¶28

“Declare that Ext.P6 award is illegal/bad in law, and set aside the

¶29

same by the issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction.”

¶30

The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, has

¶31

modified the Award by directing that in lieu of the relief of compensation

¶32

and retrenchment compensation, a total amount of Rs.1 lakh be paid by the

¶33

WA.678/2022

¶34

..2..

¶35

Management to the respondent/workman, apart from the wages that was due to him during the period prior to his termination from service.

¶36

The case of the workman was to the effect that he was appointed as a Security Guard in the service of the appellant/petitioner, viz., Kerala Institute of Tourism and Travel Studies (KITTS), Thiruvananthapuram. It is admitted in the written statement that the petitioner is a Society registered as per the provisions of the TravancoreCochin, Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955, as can be seen from a reading of Ext.P3 written statement filed by the Management (see page No. 40 of the paper book of the O.P.). The petitioner had entered service on 01.11.2013 and accordingly, he was illegally denied employment by the Management w.e.f. 08.05.2015. The matter was referred for adjudication by the Labour Court as per the provisions of Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court found that the denial of work was amounting to illegal retrenchment in violation of Section 25F of Chapter V (a) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Accordingly, the Labour Court, after hearing both sides, has rendered the impugned Ext.P6 Award dated 04.03.2021 in I.D.No.13/2017 (page 54), with the finding that denial of work and consequent termination of workman from service is illegal and it amounts to violation of the

¶37

WA.678/2022

¶38

..3..

¶39

mandatory and statutory provisions contained in Section 25F of the ID Act. Thus the main finding of the Labour Court was that the illegal denial of employment amounts to retrenchment and the said retrenchment was done in violation of Section 25F. The following reliefs had been granted by the Tribunal, as can be seen from a reading of para No.19 of Ext.P6 which reads as follows :-

¶40

“a. Management is directed to reinstate the worker into service within one month from the date of notification of this award, filing which management shall pay minimum wages from today till date of reinstatement.

¶41

b. In the alternative, management shall retrench the workman u/s 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act.

¶42

c. Management shall pay Rs.58,450/- (Rupees Fifty Eight Thousand Four Hundred and Fifty only) towards salary arrears @ Rs.175/- for 334 days from 01.11.2013 to 30.09.2014. Management shall also pay Rs.43,800/- (Rupees Forty Three Thousand Eight Hundred only) towards salary arrears @ Rs.200/- per day fro 219 days from 01.10.2014 to 07.05.2015 (total sum Rs.1,02,250/- (Rupees one lakh two thousand two hundred and fifty only0.

¶43

d. The above sum including retrenchment compensation shall be paid within one month from the date of publication of award, failing which the amount will carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from today till ate of payment and revenue recovery proceedings will be initiated to recover

WA.678/2022

..4..

the amount.”

Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner/Management has preferred the instant Writ Petition (Civil), with the aforesaid prayers. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, has held that the main reasonings of the Labour Court, on the finding regarding denial of employment, are justified. However, the learned Single Judge has opined, as per the impugned judgment rendered on 02.03.2022, that in lieu of the direction for reinstatement and direction for payment of retrenchment compensation amount, the Labour Court could have resolved the issue by ordering just and equitable compensation to the workman. In that regard, it is also relevant to note that as per the submissions of both parties, the workman has attained the age of 60, the age of superannuation, on 20.02.2022. It is in this background that the learned Single Judge, as per the impugned judgment rendered on 02.03.2022, has opined so. However the learned Single Judge has ordered that, relief No.’c’ granted by the Labour Court in the matter of payment of wages during which period wages denied to the workman prior to the termination of service, is to be granted. The directions issued by the learned Single Judge, as contained in the last paragraph of the impugned judgment, reads as follows:-

¶48

“…..Accordingly, the direction of the labour court contained in (I) is set aside. Petitioner is directed to pay compensation of Rs.1 lakh (Rupees

¶49

WA.678/2022

¶50

..5..

¶51

one lakh) in terms of the compensation already assessed over and above the arrears of wages to the respondent workman. Let the compensation and arrears be paid within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.”

¶52

After hearing both sides, we do not find any valid ground to interfere with the Award of the Labour Court as modified by the learned Single Judge. The appellant/Organization is not a statutory body wherein the termination of service of its employees is covered by statutory provisions. It appears that the appellant is a non-statutory Organization registered as a Society as per the above said Act, even going by the case of the petitioner. Therefore, when Labour Court has found that denial of employment is illegal and would amount to retrenchment in violation of Section 25F, the consequence should follow. In view of the fact that the workman had attained the age of superannuation prior to the rendering of the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge is right in taking the view that the award of compensation for the above said purpose, is more just and equitable. The amount of compensation awarded to the workman in lieu of the benefit of reinstatement and grant of retrenchment compensation amount is only Rs.1 lakh. Of course, that is apart from relief No.’c’ granted by the Labour Court, which is the wages during the period of employment prior to his termination of service. Hence, we do not find any

¶53

WA.678/2022

¶54

..6..

¶55

ground to interfere with the Award as modified by the learned Single Judge as per the impugned judgment in the W.P.(C). However, time by two months is granted to the appellant/petitioner to pay the necessary dues to the workman in compliance of the directions of the Award by the Labour Court as modified by the impugned judgment in the W.P.(C). No other orders and directions are called for.

¶56

With these observations and directions, the above Writ Appeal will stand dismissed.

¶57

Sd/-

¶58

ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE

Sd/-

C.JAYACHANDRAN

JUDGE

Mrcs

WA.678/2022

..7..

APPENDIX OF WA 678/2022

¶66

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶67

`Annexure A1`	`True Copy of the GO(Ms)No.167/12/TSM dated` `30.06.2012.`
`Annexure A2`	`True Copy of the undated list of Ex-`
	`serviceman received from the Sainik Welfare`
	`Office, Trivandrum.`
`Annexure A3`	`True Copy of the extract of minutes of the` `meeting of the KEXCON dated 28.04.2022.`

The Director v. a. Pradheepan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Director v. a. Pradheepan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Kerala, Vs Shanty Ummen

N. Sahadevan, Vs Union of India

The Director General/ Central Industrial Security Force, Vs P.Raju Pillai

Nebu.a, Vs State of Kerala

The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Vs v.Raveendran

Arif K.P., Vs the District Medical Officer (Health)