IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN TUESDAY, THE 21^ST DAY OF MAY 2024/31ST VAISAKHA, 1946 OP(LC) NO. 1811 OF 2013 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CP NO.43 OF 2006 OF LABOUR COURT, KANNUR PETITIONER:

THALIPARAMBA MUNICIPALITY THALIPARAMBA PIN – 670 141, KANNUR (DISTRICT), REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

BY ADVS.

SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH SMT.BINDUMOL JOSEPH SRI.B.S.SYAMANTHAK RESPONDENTS:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO LABOUR DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAURAM – 1.

2 LABOUR COURT KANNUR – 670 101.

3 SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR REVENUE RECOVERY TALUK OFFICE, THALIPARAMBA PIN – 670 141, KANNUR (DISTRICT).

4 SMT. SATHI INDERAMMEL D/O. BHASKARAN, INDERAMMEL HOUSE, THALIPARAMBA P. O, PIN – 670 141, KANNUR DISTRICT.

SRI. P.U.SHAILAJAN SRI. JUSTIN JACOB - GP THIS OP (LABOUR COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

12.04.2024, THE COURT ON 21.05.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This OP(LC) is filed by Thaliparamba Municipality challenging Ext.P9 order passed by the Labour Court, Kannur rejecting the application for condonation of delay in setting aside ex-parte order in an application filed under section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, I.D Act).

2. The 4^th respondent, who was a sanitation worker of the Municipality, filed Claim Petition No.43/2006 under section 33C(2) of the I.D Act before the Labour Court, Kannur contending that she was appointed as Badli worker from 17.04.1997 to 19.07.2001 continuously without break and is entitled for arrears of wages amounting to Rs.32,665.10 for the said period. The Secretary of the Municipality, the respondent therein, was set ex-parte and an ex-parte order was passed on 22.07.2009. Later, Ext.P6 application was filed by the Municipality to set aside the ex-parte order and the same was allowed on

12.01.2011 after condoning the delay of 307 days. However, even thereafter, the Municipality did not enter appearance or filed any counter statement. Accordingly, the Municipality was again set ex-parte. The Labour Court, by Ext.P3 order dated 10.03.2011, found that the 4^th respondent's claim can be adjudicated under section 33C(2) and ordered that the 4^th respondent is entitled to realise the sum of Rs.32,665/- from the Municipality along with 6% interest p.a from the date of application till payment.

3. The petitioner filed Ext.P6 interlocutory application to set aside Ext.P3 ex-parte order in CP No.43/2006 along with Ext.P7 interlocutory application to condone delay of 368 days in seeking to set aside the ex-parte order. The petitioner filed OP(LC) No.988/2012 before this Court for direction to the Labour Court to consider and pass orders on the aforesaid interlocutory applications and this Court, by Ext.P8 judgment, directed the Labour Court to dispose of the said interlocutory applications within three months and ordered the proceedings for realisation of the amounts due under Ext.P3 to be put on hold till the interlocutory applications are disposed of. The Labour Court, by Ext.P9 order, rejected the application for condonation of delay in seeking to set aside Ext.P3 ex-parte order and consequently dismissed the application to set aside the ex-parte order. Pursuant to Ext.P9, Ext.P10 recovery notice was issued to the petitioner. Challenging Exts.P9 and P10, this Original Petition is filed.

4. The 4th respondent has filed a counter afÏdavit rebutting the averments in the original petition and producing Ext.R4(a) judgment wherein this Court in an identical case filed by the petitioner Municipality held that a claim for equal remuneration can be adjudicated by the Labour Court since the claim is for an existing right.

5. Heard Smt.Bindumol Joseph, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.P.U Shailajan, the learned counsel for the 4^th respondent and Sri.Justin Jacob, the learned Government Pleader.

6. Ext.P1 claim petition filed by the 4th respondent on 21.6.2006 was allowed ex-parte on 22.07.2009.