Back
Judges : P.A.MOHAMMED
Beedi Workers Industrial Co-op.Society - Appellant
Versus
Kunhikannan - Respondent
Case No : O.P.No.8732 of 1989
Decided On : 08/25/1993
Advocates Appeared :
M.K. Damodaran For Petitioner TA. Rajendran & Govt Pleader (P. Jayasankar) For Respondents
Beedi Workers' Industrial Co-operative Society - Employment Dispute - Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966 (S.31(2)) - S.31(1), S.31(2)(a), S.31(2)(b), S.38, S.18, S.40 - The court upheld the validity of the appeal filed by the employee under S.31(2) of the Act, rejecting the contention that the appeal was not maintainable under S.18 of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act. The court emphasized the welfare nature of the Act and interpreted its provisions in favor of the workers. It found that the employee's case involved denial of employment by the employer, not abandonment by the employee, and upheld the jurisdiction of the second respondent to try the appeal. The court also highlighted the failure of the Society to implement the re-instatement order and urged the authorities to take immediate action.
Fact of the Case:
The Beedi Workers' Industrial Co-operative Society challenged an award directing re-instatement of an employee under S.31(2) of the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966. The employee had alleged denial of employment and filed an appeal, which was resisted by the Society. The second respondent found in favor of the employee and ordered re-instatement or payment of compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the constitutional validity of the Act and rejected the Society's contention that the appeal was not maintainable. It found that the employee's case involved denial of employment by the employer, not abandonment by the employee, and upheld the jurisdiction of the second respondent to try the appeal. The court also highlighted the failure of the Society to implement the re-instatement order and urged the authorities to take immediate action.
Issues: The issues involved the maintainability of the appeal under S.31(2) of the Act, the nature of the employee's case (denial of employment or abandonment), and the jurisdiction of the second respondent to try the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the welfare nature of the Act and interpreted its provisions in favor of the workers. It found that the employee's case involved denial of employment by the employer, not abandonment by the employee, and upheld the jurisdiction of the second respondent to try the appeal. The court also highlighted the failure of the Society to implement the re-instatement order and urged the authorities to take immediate action.
Final Decision: The Original Petition was dismissed, but the court urged the authorities to take immediate action for the implementation of the re-instatement order.
The petitioner in this writ petition is the Beedi Workers' Industrial Co-operative Society (hereinafter referred to as 'the Society') represented by its Secretary. The Society challenges Exts. P1 award passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kozhikode in an appeal filed by the first respondent-employee under S.31(2) of the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966 (for short'the act) directing the Society to re-instate the employee with continuity of service, and in default the Society shall pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- in lump sum in lieu of re-instatement. It is an admitted case that the employee has not been re-instated nor has he been paid the compensation in lieu of re-instatement.
2. The facts of the cause can be capsulated thus: The first respondent was employed by the Society as a 'beedi worker' for a period of two years and he was denied employment with effect from 4-3-1986. It was alleged that the Society was working against the terms of the bye-laws of the Central Society in so far as the wage calculation and therefore the first respondent filed a petition against the Society before the Labour Court, Kasargode on 31-10-1985. When the first respondent approached for wages on 1-2-1986 it was denied by the Society without sufficient reasons. The first respondent was working under the Society from 1-2-1986 to 3-3-1986 without wages. Therefore the employee filed an appeal before the second respondent on 12-4-1986 alleging that the appellant denied him employment. That appeal was resisted by the Society and denied the allegations. It was contended that the first respondent had absented from duty and therefore a show cause notice was issued to him asking why. his name should not be removed from the workers roll. The reply given by the employee was found to be unsatisfactory. Thereafter he did not report for duty subsequent to 3-3-1986. Thus, according to the Society, first respondent had voluntarily abandoned his employment and therefore his name was removed from the workers roll. After conducting the enquiry the second respondent came to the conclusion that the case of the Society that the employee had abandoned his employment had not been proved. However the second respondent found that the first respondent was not entitled to any back wages for the period during which he was out of employment inasmuch as he was at liberty to claim the arrears of wages, if any, due to him before the appropriate authority. Finally the second respondent, as per Ext. P1 award ordered re-instatement of the first respondent in default of which the Society should pay a lump sum amount of Rs. 5,000/- in lieu of
reinstatement.
3. Sub-section (1) of S.31 of the Act mandates that no employer shall dispense with the services of an employee who has been employed for a period of six months or more except for a reasonable cause and without giving such employee at least one month's notice or wages in lieu of such notice. Sub-section (2)(a) provides the right of appeal to the employee who has been discharged, dismissed or retrenched from service to the prescribed authority. Clause (b) thereof further provides that the appellate authority after giving notice to the employer and employee, may dismiss the appeal or direct re-instatement of the employee with or without wages for the period during which he was kept out of employment or direct payment of compensation without re-' instatement or grant such other relief as it deems fit in the circumstances of the case. It was in exercise of this power that the second respondent had passed Ext. P1 award. It could not therefore be said that Ext. P1 was passed without jurisdiction or the first respondent had exceeded his powers in passing the said order.
4. The contention capitally projected by the petitioner is that the appeal filed by the employee under S.31(2) is not maintainable and therefore Ext. P3 award passed by the second respondent is 'invalid'. The argument in this regard is two
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
