Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
AMIT RAWAL, J.
The Chadayamangalam Rubber Marketing Co-Operative Society Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
The District Labour Officer & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 16094 of 2021
Decided On : 19-01-2022
Labour Court - Industrial Disputes Act - Section 33(C)(2) - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(S) of the Act. The court also referred to the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and its provisions under Section 69. The judgment highlighted the limitations of the Arbitration Court's jurisdiction and the rights of the respondent to claim benefits under Section 33(C)(2).
Fact of the Case:
The society filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Labour Court under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The respondent, who was initially appointed as a clerk and later promoted to the post of Secretary, filed a claim petition before the Labour Court for various service benefits. The society contested the proceedings, arguing that the matter should be adjudicated under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and that the respondent was not entitled to claim the benefits under Section 33(C)(2).
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent was entitled to claim benefits under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, despite the settlement reached and the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The court also quashed the award of the Labour Court and the consequential show cause notice.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the rights of the respondent to claim benefits, and the applicability of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act in adjudicating the service-related disputes.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the limitations of the Arbitration Court's jurisdiction, the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(S) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and the respondent's entitlement to claim benefits under Section 33(C)(2). The court also considered the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and its applicability in the present case.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, directed the Arbitration Court to assess the damages/compensation to be awarded to the respondent, and quashed the award of the Labour Court and the consequential show cause notice.
JUDGMENT :
Writ petition on behalf of society has been filed laying challenge to the order of the Labour Court under Section 33(C) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act dated 09.02.2021 Ex.P8. The controversy in this case has already been narrated in the judgment of this Court dated 23.10.2020 Ext.P4 wherein society had challenged the order of the Arbitration Court and Tribunal allowing the arbitration claim of the respondent, who at the initial service was appointed as clerk on 11.05.1967, was promoted from time to time and lastly to the post of Secretary, which was designated as Managing Director. A show cause notice dated 04.10.2000 was served upon seeking explanation and dissatisfied with the explanation, the society decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings, which resulted into suspension with effect from 21.10.2000 pending enquiry. Enquiry officer submitted a report on 25.01.2002 holding the respondent guilty of charges. Subcommittee vide decision dated 25.02.2002 decided to dismiss the party respondent from the service. It is in that background the proceedings reached the Arbitration Court. The management/Society raised the plea that the Arbitration Court could not order reinstatement and grant of service benefits in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Ambika T.N. v. Kottappady Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No.E.155 and Others [2018 (4) KHC 493]. This Court was also brought to the notice that the respondent had also filed a petition under Section 33 (C)(2) for claiming certain benefits as recorded in paragraph 10 of the judgment Ext.P4. Noticing all these contentions, this Court accepted the plea of the society by directing the Arbitration Court to assess the damages and composition to be awarded to the respondent in view of the harassment and spate of litigation for number of years and as regards the other claims regarding backwages, was to be considered in the pending application.
2. When the matter was pending before the Arbitration Court for assessment of the damages a settlement was arrived at resulting into payment of Rs.2,00,000/- on 27.04.2021. However, in the meantime a claim petition No.16/2016 had already been preferred by the party respondent before the Labour Court under 33(C)(2) wherein petitioner society did not put in appearance resulted into following directions:
a. Opposite party is directed to pay the following amounts:
i. Rs.6,93,311/- (Rupees six lakhs ninety three thousand three hundred and eleven only) towards balance monthly pay arrears.
ii. Rs.11,60,751/- (Rupees eleven lakhs sixty thousand seven hundred and fifty one only) towards interest @ 10% of balance monthly pay arrears from 21.10.2000 to 31.05.2019.
iii. Rs.80,860/- (Rupees eighty thousand eight hundred and sixty only) towards earned leave wages and Rs.1,10,509/- (Rupees one lakh ten thousand five hundred and nine only) towards its interest.
iv. Rs.88,000/- (Rupees eighty eight only) towards bonus arrears and Rs.1,27,467/- (Rupees one lakh twenty seven thousand four hundred and sixty seven only) towards its interest.
v. Remit Rs.68,178/- (Rupees sixty eight thousand one hundred and seventy eight only) towards arrears of pension contribution payable to co-operative society pension board.
vi. The above sum shall be paid within one month, failing which the amount will carry interest @ 10% per annum from the date of application (25.06.2019) till payment.
Pronounced in Open Court this the 9th day of February 2021.”
3. Sri. Arjun Raghavan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the provisions of Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act is a complete code. All the matters relating to the service of seniority has to be adjudicated in those proceedings and not by other proceedings.
4. On plain and simple reading of provisions of Section 33(C)(1) or 33(C)(2) respondent party would not fall within the definition of 'workman' under
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
