Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N.NAGARESH, J
V.m. Vinu S/o Mani – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. employment denial and claim (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 2. statutory prohibition upheld (Para 13) |
JUDGMENT :
W.P.(C) No.14042/2022 has been filed by the petitioners seeking to quash Ext.P8 Award dated 06.01.2022 in ID No.46/2018 of Labour Court, Ernakulam. W.P.(C) No.3686/2023 has been filed by the petitioner who is a Toddy Shop worker, seeking to quash the same Award to the extent the management is held not liable to pay backwages or other benefits to the petitioner.
2. The parties to the writ petitions and the exhibits marked are referred to in this judgment as they are arrayed/marked in W.P.(C) No.14042/2022, for convenience. The 2nd respondent-workman raised an industrial dispute aggrieved by the alleged denial of employment by the petitioners in TS No.107, Muthappan Liquors, Anthikkad Range, Thrissur. The 2nd respondent filed Ext.P3 Claim Statement alleging that she has been working in the Toddy Shop for long, under various contractors and even the petitioners permitted the 2nd respondent to work in the Toddy Shop in April and May of 2014. The petitioners denied employment to the 2nd respondent on and from 01.06.2014. The 2nd respondent c
The court upheld the statutory prohibition against employing women in Toddy Shops, distinguishing it from other contexts and emphasizing the protective intent of the law.
Judicial review in labour disputes is confined to procedural fairness; substantive issues not raised in original petitions cannot be reconsidered in Writ Applications.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Labour Court cannot entertain claim petitions and adjudicate the merits and demerits of the rights of the workman under Section 33(C)(2) o....
The Labour Court's jurisdiction is limited to the terms of reference, and it may determine the issue of whether an individual is a 'workman' as defined in law within that framework.
The court affirmed that terminations without adherence to natural justice and statutory provisions are illegal, emphasizing the rights of workers under the Tamil Nadu Permanent Status Act.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for contract labourers to comply with the terms and conditions stipulated for regularisation and permanent absorption, including....
The termination of an employee without due process is illegal, and the burden of proof lies with the employer to substantiate claims of non-employment.
The court upheld the Labour Court's finding of unjustified non-employment of workmen due to unfair labor practices, establishing the employer-employee relationship despite claims of contract labor.
The burden of proof regarding the status of an employee as a 'workman' lies with the employee, not the employer, as per the Industrial Disputes Act.
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
