Dismissed

The Pharmaceutical Corporation (Im) Kerala Ltd. v. the Pharmaceutical Corporation (Im) Workers Union (Intuc)

Kerala HC6 Mar 2024WA/880/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ appeal against findings that the appellant employer failed to comply with retrenchment compensation provisions. The court rejected the claim that substituting daily wage workers constituted contractual employment, relying on Supreme Court precedent.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the impugned order upholding the labour award was affirmed.

The Pharmaceutical Corporation (Im) Kerala… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1945

¶7

WA NO. 880 OF 2018

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 13.12.2017 IN WPC NO.30940 OF

¶9

2007 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶10

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶11

THE PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATION (IM) KERALA LTD.
P.O.BOX NO.174, THRISSUR-680001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶12

BY ADVS.
SRI.E.K.MADHAVAN
SMT.P.VIJAYAMMA
LATHA ANAND

¶13

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1 THE PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATION (IM) WORKERS UNION (INTUC) THIRUVAMPADY,THRISSUR.REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.

¶15

2 THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL PALAKKAD.

¶16

SR GP SRI BIMAL K NATH

¶17

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.03.2024, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WA NO. 880 OF 2018

JUDGMENT

Amit Rawal, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment of the Single Bench upholding the award of the Labour Court whereby the appellant – employer has been held liable for not complying with the provisions of Section 25 F of the Industrial Dispute Act for retrenching the services of the workman. The facts in brief are that the appellant – management had employed 37 workers on daily wages for a period of 179 days on 26.08.2001 and in the gap of fifteen (15) days, again re-engaged on 07.09.2001. On expiry of second period of 179 days sought list from Employment Exchange for substituting the daily wagers. It is in that account the aggrieved workers approached Labour Court for arising dispute. Labour Court noticing all the provisions found that it was not a contractual employment as enshrined under Section 2(oo)(bb) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, but would be retrenchment and in the absence of amount of compensation as prescribed under Section 25F,

¶23

WA NO. 880 OF 2018

¶24

¶25

dispensation/disengagement of services was unjustifiable. The learned Single Judge also upheld the aforementioned finding.

¶26

Learned counsel representing the appellant submitted that judgments both of Single Bench and Labour Court are not sustainable in the eyes of law as the another set of employees were being engaged from the Employment Exchange because the contractual employment of the erstwhile set of workers was over and this would be falling within Section 2(oo)(bb) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.

¶27

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and appraised the paper book.

¶28

The contractual employment would be construed to be an employment where after a particular period of time the work which was being utilized or performed by the workers come to an end. But here, as per the facts noticed above, the practice followed by the appellant was to disengage the daily wages and engage another set of daily wages from Employment Exchange. This practice has

¶29

¶30

WA NO. 880 OF 2018

¶31

already been deprecated by the Supreme Court in Hargurpratap Singh v. State of Punjab and Others [2007 (13) SCC 292] where it has been settled that the contractual worker/daily wager cannot be replaced with another set of daily wagers unless the post is filled on regular basis. The aforementioned ratio is squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances. Thus the findings of the Single Bench in upholding the order Labour Court do not require any different opinion than the one arrived at.

¶32

No ground for interference is made out. Appeal stands dismissed.

Sd/-

AMIT RAWAL JUDGE

Sd/-

C.S. SUDHA JUDGE

nak

The Pharmaceutical Corporation (Im) Kerala Ltd. v. the Pharmaceutical Corporation (Im) Workers Union (Intuc)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Pharmaceutical Corporation (Im) Kerala Ltd. v. the Pharmaceutical Corporation (Im) Workers Union (Intuc)

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

The Corporate Manager Vs Sobhin George

Export Inspection Council of India Vs K S Jeejimol

Employees Prvident Fund Organization Vs West Coast Petroleum Agency

State of Kerala Vs the Kerala State Coir Corporation

Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing and Marketing) Corporation Vs Kerala State Beverages Corporation Staff Organization, Intuc.

Kottukal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No. T 196 Vs G. Biju