Back
2016 Supreme(Ker) 1490
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.
Surendran V.K. - Appellant
Vs.
The Elavoor Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. And Another - Respondents
W.P. (C) Nos. 19414 of 2006 (J) and 34323 of 2007
Decided On : 11-03-2016
For the Appellant :Asok M. Cherian, Santhosh G. Prabhu, Advocates
For the Respondent:P.N. Mohanan, Advocate
Challenging only the consequential order without challenging the primary order is of no consequence, and there is no fixed limitation for enforcing the Labour Court's award.
Headnote:
Labour Dispute - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 33C(2)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Co-operative Bank, terminated the services of the first respondent, a daily wage worker, leading to an industrial dispute. The Labour Court awarded the first respondent wages and compensation, which the petitioner contested.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner's challenge to the consequential order (Ext.P6) was not valid as they did not challenge the primary order (Ext.P3). The court also ruled that there was no limitation for enforcing the Labour Court's award and that the delay in the first respondent's application to join duty did not invalidate his claim for future wages.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the petitioner's challenge to the consequential order, the limitation for enforcing the award, and the impact of the first respondent's delayed application on his claim for future wages.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that challenging only the consequential order without challenging the primary order was of no consequence. It also clarified that there was no fixed limitation for enforcing the Labour Court's award and that the delay in the first respondent's application did not automatically terminate the operation of the award.
Final Decision: The petitioner's writ petition was dismissed, and the first respondent's petition was allowed, directing the petitioner to settle all benefits to the first respondent as determined in Ext.P6 order.
Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.
The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 34323 of 2007, a Co-operative Bank, engaged the first respondent on a daily wage basis from 02.08.1994. On 30.06.1999, the petitioner Bank terminated his services forcing him to raise an industrial dispute in I.D. No. 101 of 2000.
2. The petitioner Bank filed W.P.(C) No. 34323 of 2007 questioning Ext.P6 order of the Labour Court. On the other hand, the first respondent filed W.P.(C) No. 19414 of 2006 seeking enforcement of Ext.P3 award.
3. For ease of reference and convenience, I take into consideration the facts and exhibits in W.P.(C) No. 34323 of 2007 for the narrative purpose.
4. As the record reveals, the second respondent, the Labour Court, rendered Ext.P3 award in the first respondent's favour. Among other things, the Labour Court has observed thus:
"9. Therefore it is held that the workman is entitled for notice pay and compensation in accordance with law. Since nothing of that sort was complied with, he would deem to be in service till his service is validly terminated.
10. Since all the regular appointments in the management society have to be done on the basis of recruitment rules of its own, the claim of the workman for absorption by considering the length of his service rendered cannot be accepted. The plea of the workman in that respect is rejected."
5. Subsequently, the first respondent submitted Ext.P4 representation before the petitioner Bank expressing his willingness to join duty. But, it was to no avail. Under those circumstances, the first respondent filed Ext.P5 Claim Petition and invited Ext.P6 order under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court in Ext.P6 has declared to the following effect:
"In the result, Claim Petition is allowed allowing the petitioner to recover wages at the rate of Rs. 1040/- monthly from 01.07.1999 till 04.11.2003 and from 15.02.2005 till 06.07.2005, the date of filing the petition. The opposite party is directed to pay the amount before the expiry of one month from this date. In default, the petitioner is entitled to recover interest at the rate of 6% from the date of petition till the date of recovery."
6. The petitioner bank has assailed Ext.P6 order passed by the Labour court; conversely the respondent workman has sought the implementation of Ext.P6 order.
7. In the first place, the petitioner Bank has not chosen to challenge Ext.P3 award which has attained finality. As has been rightly contended by the learned counsel for the first respondent Ext.P6, at best, is only consequential in nature.
8. Indeed, Shri. Sabari, the learned counsel for the petitioner Bank, has strenuously contended that in terms of Section 33C(2) of the Act, the first respondent ought to have filed what is said to be the Claim Petition within three months. He has also contended that though the petitioner Bank has not challenged the award per se, it has nevertheless challenged its enforcement on the grounds of limitation.
9. The learned for the petitioner Bank has also strenuously contended that in response to Ext.P3 award, the workman did not report duty. According to him since the respondent has abandoned his right, he could not later turned back and take any advantage of the same award.
10. In response, the learned counsel for the first respondent, placing reliance on a decision of a learned Division Bench of this Court in Kumaraswamy v. S.T.E. Workers' Union, 1957 KLT 994, has contended that for enforcing an award passed by the Labour Court, there is no limitation fixed.
11. Trying to meet the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the first respondent filed belatedly Ext.P4 application expressing his willingness to join, the learned counsel for the first respondent would contend that if there were to be any delay, it would not be fatal to workman's claim for future wages from the date of award. In this regard, he has placed reliance on a judgment of another learned Division Bench of this Court in Annamm
