Management challenged a Labour Court award directing it to pay a former Area Sales Manager ₹2,58,000 as arrears of salary, contending he was not a 'workman' under Section 2(s) and did not work for the claimed period. The High Court found no evidence supporting these contentions since the management adduced none below, and dismissed the petition.
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 N.NAGARESH
THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 3RD SRAVANA, 1946
OP(LC) NO. 2019 OF 2013
CP NO.19 OF 2011 OF LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/OPPOSITE PARTY/MANAGEMENT:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, QUATTRO INVESTMENTS PVT.LTD., NO.40, ROAD NO.7 JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD - 500 033.
BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW SRI.ARUN THOMAS SRI.JENNIS STEPHEN
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/WORKMAN:
JOY MATHEW S/O.C.I. MATHEW CHIRAMMAL HOUSE, MANIKAMANGALAM P.O., KALADI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV SMT.A.K.PREETHA
THIS OP (LABOUR COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23.07.2024 AND THE COURT ON 25.07.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
O.P.(LC) No.2019/2013
: 2 :
N. NAGARESH, J.
O.P.(LC) No.2019 of 2013
Dated this the 25th day of July, 2024
J U D G M E N T
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The OP(LC) is filed against order dated 08.08.2012
in Claim Petition No.19/2011 of the Labour Court, Ernakulam. The petitioner is the Management/Employer and was opposite party in the Claim Petition. The respondent is the workman who filed the Claim Petition.
O.P.(LC) No.2019/2013 : 3 :
Claim Petition in the Labour Court.
purview of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The respondent was Area Sales Manager and had control and management of marketing. He was drawing a fixed salary of ₹2,64,000/- per year. In addition, he was entitled to incentive based on his performance. During the service with the petitioner-Management, he was employed by another Company. The respondent did not submit resignation letter as alleged.
O.P.(LC) No.2019/2013
: 4 :
was working for some other Company. The principles of 'no work no pay' would apply. The Labour Court failed to consider all the afore aspects.
O.P.(LC) No.2019/2013
: 5 :
did not work during the period for which he is claiming arrears of wages. Before this Court, the petitioner made available copy of appointment letter of the respondent for annual salary of ₹2.64 lakhs.
The OP(LC) is therefore dismissed.
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE
Sd/-
aks/23.07.2024
O.P.(LC) No.2019/2013
: 6 :
APPENDIX OF OP(LC) 2019/2013
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
| EXT.P1 | TRUE COP | Y OF | THE CLAIM PETITION |
|---|---|---|---|
| NO.19/2011 ERNAKULAM |
OF | THE LABOUR COURT, | |
| EXT.P2 | TRUE COPY | OF THE | OBJECTION FILED BY THE |
| OPPOSITE | PARTY | IN CLAIM PETITION | |
| NO.19/2011 ERNAKULAM |
OF | THE LABOUR COURT, | |
| EXT.P3 | TRUE COPY | OF THE | ORDER DATED 08-08-2012 |
| IN CLAIM | PETITI | ON NO.19/2011 OF THE | |
| LABOUR COU | RT, ERN | AKULAM. |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondent, an Area Sales Manager with an annual salary of ₹2,64,000, falls within the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Whether the Labour Court's award directing payment of ₹2,58,000 in arrears of salary was sustainable.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Managing Director, Quattro Investments Pvt.Ltd.
Joy Mathew
N. Nagaresh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
