Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 1018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ.
Cochin Devaswom Board, Represented By Its Secretary - Appellant
Versus
Sathy Rajendran - Respondent
WA Nos. 1528, 1540 of 2023
Decided On : 18-02-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : BY ADV K.P.SUDHEER, SC, CDB
For the Respondent: BY ADVS. Ashok Shenoy B P.S.GIREESH(K/341/2013) SALIH P.A.(K/422/2020) ARJUN R NAIK(K/001044/2020) THEJALAKSHMI R.S.(K/001390/2022)
IMPORTANT POINT
The employer-employee relationship is essential for the application of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, which mandates wage payments during the pendency of legal proceedings.
Headnote:
(A) Kerala High Court Act, 1958 - Section 5(i) - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 17B - Writ appeals filed to quash Labour Court awards directing reinstatement of workers with back wages - The Board argued no employer-employee relationship exists, challenging the Labour Court's awards - The learned Single Judge allowed payments under Section 17B pending appeal - The Court found that the appellant Board was not the employer and thus not liable for wages under Section 17B. (Paras 1 - 13 )
(B) Employment Law - The provisions of Section 17B mandate payment of wages to workmen pending appeal against reinstatement awards, unless certain conditions are met - The employer's obligation to pay wages is independent of the outcome of the challenge. (Paras 6 , 10 , 12 )
Facts of the case:
The Cochin Devaswom Board challenged Labour Court awards reinstating workers and ordering back wages, arguing that it had no authority over the temple's administration and thus no employer-employee relationship existed. (Paras 1 - 2 )
Findings of Court:
The Court ruled that the Board is not the employer of the workers and cannot be directed to pay under Section 17B, as there was no master-servant relationship. (Paras 13 )
Issues: The main issues were whether the Board had any employer-employee relationship with the workers and the applicability of Section 17B in the current context. (Paras 1 - 2 )
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that since the Board was not the employer, it could not be compelled to pay wages under Section 17B, setting aside the learned Single Judge's orders. (Paras 13 )
Result: Writ appeals allowed, setting aside the impugned orders.
JUDGMENT :
Muralee Krishna, J.
1. These writ appeals are filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act , 1958, by the petitioner-Cochin Devaswom Board (the ‘Board’ in short) in W.P.(C) No.38124 of 2022 and 38137 of 2022 respectively. The writ petitions were filed by the appellant- Board under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the respective awards dated 28.07.2021 passed by the Labour Court, Ernakulam, in Industrial Disputes Nos.7 and 8 of 2017, directing the appellant Board to reinstate the workers in the respective Industrial Disputes with full back wages, continuity in service and all other attendant benefits. In the writ petitions, the respective 1st respondent workmen filed interlocutory applications under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (‘the Act’ in short), for payment of full wages last drawn by them pending the writ petitions. As per the impugned orders dated 31.07.2023 passed in the writ petitions, the learned Single Judge allowed the Interlocutory Applications and directed the appellant to pay the workmen full wages last drawn by them, at the rate of Rs.3,500/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively, per month from 24.11.2022 onwards until further orders. Being aggrieved, the appellant Board filed the above writ appeals.
2. The 1st respondent workmen in these writ appeals claimed before the Labour Court that they are the employees of Thirumaraikulam Sree Mahadevakshethram at Chethikode. The appellant Board contended before the Labour Court that the temple in question is a controlled institution and the appellant has no right to interfere in the day-to-day administration of the temple. The entrustment of the temple to the appellant by the trust which at present manages the temple is under challenge in W.P.(C) No.30161 of 2016 pending before this Court and hence the appellant has no right to interfere in the administration of the temple and there is no employer and employee relationship between the appellant Board and the 1st respondent workmen. However, as per Ext.P8 award passed in the respective Industrial Disputes, the Labour Court directed the appellant to reinstate the 1st respondent in the writ appeals with full back wages and all other attendant benefits. Challenging these awards, the appellant preferred W.P.(C) Nos. 38124 of 2022 and 38137 of 2022 respectively, wherein the impugned interlocutory orders were passed by the learned Single Judge, without noting this crucial aspect.
3. Heard the learned standing counsel for the appellant- Board and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent workmen in the writ appeals.
4. The learned standing counsel for the appellants submitted that it is true that as per Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, the employer shall be liable to pay the workmen during the pendency of any proceedings against the award of the Labour Court directing reinstatement of the workmen with full wages last drawn by him. The same is not applicable in the case of the appellant Board since there is no employer and employee relationship between the appellant and the 1st respondent. The learned standing counsel brought the attention of this Court to the order dated 09.09.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.(C)No.30161 of 2016, whereby the enforcement of Ext.P14 decision in that writ petition to take over Thirumaraikulam Sree Mahadeva temple by the appellant Board was stayed by this Court. Subsequently that interim order has extended until further orders as per the order dated 16.10.2017.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent workmen supported the interlocutory orders passed by the learned Single Judge.
6. The impugned orders dated 31.7.2023 were passed by the learned Single Judge on the application of the 1st respondent workmen under Section 17B of the Act. The said Section reads thus:
“17B. Payment of full wages to workman pending proceedings in higher Courts - Where in any case, a Labour Court, Tribunal or Nati
