Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.M. Badar, J.
South Indian Wires and Ropes Ltd. and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
Vijayan Pilla C.P. and Ors. - Respondent
WP (C) No. 13679 of 2020 (H), WP (C) No. 13690 of 2020 (I), WP (C) No. 13708 of 2020 (K), WP (C) No. 13813 of 2020 (B), WP (C) No. 13852 of 2020 (F), WP (C) No. 13978 of 2020 (V), WP (C) No. 14063 of 2020(G), WP (C) No. 14152 of 2020 (T), WP (C) No. 14160 of 2020(T), WP (C) No. 14225 of 2020 (C), WP (C) No. 14271 of 2020 (H), WP (C) No. 14298 of 2020 (J), WP (C) No. 14366 of 2020 (U), WP (C) No. 14548 of 2020 (P), WP (C). No. 14552 of 2020 (T), WP( C) No. 14671 of 2020 (H), WP (C) No. 14703 of 2020 (K), WP (C) No. 14709 of 2020 (K), WP (C) No. 14779 of 2020 (V), WP (C) No. 14786 of 2020 (W), WP (C) No. 14813 of 2020 (B), WP (C) No. 14935 of 2020 (N), WP (C) No. 14958 of 2020 (T), WP (C). No. 14985 of 2020 (W), WP (C) No. 15073 of 2020 (H), WP (C) No. 15093 of 2020 (J), WP (C) No. 15206 of 2020 (A), WP (C) No. 15217 of 2020 (B), WP (C) No. 15448 of 2020 (E), WP (C) No. 15468 of 2020 (G), WP (C) No. 15548 of 2020 (P), WP (C) No. 15578 of 2020 (V), WP (C) No. 15581 of 2020 (W), WP (C) No. 15582 of 2020 (W), WP (C) No. 15701 of 2020 (K), WP (C) No. 15702 of 2020 (K), WP (C) No. 15704 of 2020 (K), WP(C). No. 15705 of 2020 (K), WP (C) No. 15706 of 2020 (K), WP (C) No. 15870 of 2020 (G), WP (C) No. 15871 of 2020 (H), WP (C) No. 15888 of 2020 (I) and WP (C) No. 17268 of 2020 (G)
Decided On : 06-11-2020
For the Appellant : Deepu Thankan, Ummul Fida and Lakshmi Sreedhar, Advs.
For the Respondents: V.J. James, K.A. Hazan, M.M. Fathima Jaleena and K.P. Wilson, Advs.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the settlement agreement and statutory provisions to determine the entitlement of the workmen to pecuniary benefits under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act.
Headnote:
I.D. Act - Labour Court - Section 33C(2) - Summary of Acts and Sections
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a group of writ petitions challenging the order of the Labour Court, Ernakulam, in applications under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The workmen, who were employees of a company that went into liquidation, filed claims for arrears of salary, leave salary, bonus, and compensation as per a settlement agreement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the workmen were entitled to bonus under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, and compensation as per a settlement agreement. However, the claims for leave salary and other dues were rejected due to lack of evidence.
Issues: The main issue was the entitlement of the workmen to various pecuniary benefits under the settlement agreement and statutory provisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the settlement agreement and statutory provisions to determine the entitlement of the workmen to pecuniary benefits. It held that the workmen were entitled to bonus and compensation as per the settlement agreement, but rejected claims for leave salary and other dues due to lack of evidence.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the writ petitions by modifying the award of claim No. II to grant bonus at Rs. 2500/- with interest, and maintained the award of claim No. III for compensation payable as per the agreement dated 28.02.2011 with interest.
JUDGMENT :
A.M. Badar, J.
1. These group of writ petitions have been placed together for final disposal because common order (Ext. P4) dated 26.02.2020 passed by the learned Labour Court, Ernakulam in applications under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the I.D. Act', for short) filed by respondents/workmen/original applicants is impugned herein at the instance of petitioners/management/original opposite parties. In all applications under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act, joint trial was conducted by the learned Labour Court at the request of respondents/workmen taking the Claim Petition No. 5 of 2018 as the lead case. The workmen adduced evidence of one of them i.e. Balachandran Pillai (petitioner in C.P. No. 5 of 2018) as PW 1 whereas petitioners herein/management had not chosen to adduce oral evidence. Documentary evidence placed on record remain undisputed. By the impugned order, the learned Labour Court was pleased to allow petitions under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act partly by awarding claim No. II and claim No. III laid by workmen with interest by rejecting claim No. I.
2. As common questions of facts and law so also common order passed by the learned Labour Court are involved in this batch of cases, Writ Petition bearing No. 13679 of 2020 is taken as a lead case for incorporation of facts as well as for passing the judgment in these cases.
3. Facts in brief necessary for deciding instant writ petitions are thus:
(a) The 1st petitioner is a Company engaged in production of high carbon of steel wire ropes. Said Company could not perform well and went into liquidation. A Company Petition bearing No. 28 of 2002 came to be registered on reference made by the Board of Industrial Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) in the matter of winding up of the said Company. On 20.12.2005, this Court passed orders winding up the 1st petitioner-Company. During pendency of appeals challenging that order before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, a revival scheme came to be proposed under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956. Accordingly, winding up proceedings were kept in abeyance and the Company discharged its liability towards secured and unsecured creditors. The 2nd petitioner, by filing an application under Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 prayed for recall of the order of winding up so that the Company could be revived and restored. The workmen also preferred Company Applications under Rule 164 of the said Rules praying for an order for granting their claims mentioned in the annexure to the affidavit. Vide common order dated 29.05.2017 passed in C.A. Nos. 216 and 979 of 2016 and 708 of 2011 in C.P. 28 of 2002, the Company Applications came to be disposed of and the operative portion of the order reads thus:
"In the result, these Company Applications are disposed of as follows.
a. The winding up order passed on 20.12.2005 in C.P. No. 28/2002 will stand recalled and consequently the Company will stand revived and restored to its original position as on the date of initiation of proceedings, with all its rights and liabilities as a legal entity.
b. The petitioners in C.As. 708/2011 and 979/2016 are allowed to agitate their claims for additional benefits by way of gratuity or otherwise before the competent Forum and once, such claim is made, the claim shall be legally adjudicated and decided by the competent Forum.
c. The fact that the above petitioners have received some amount towards their claims shall not stand in the way of their right to get more benefits, if they are entitled to get such benefits in law.
d. Revival of the company consequent to the above order, will have the legal consequences that the company will be bound by its liabilities under the law as a legal entity, found by any competent Forum.
e. The official liquidator is hereby directed to hand over the company and assets including the records to the competent person within three weeks from this date.
f. The amount, if
