Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 14847
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
AMIT RAWAL, C.S. Sudha, JJ
THE KERALA ELECTRICALS AND ALLIED ENGINEERING CO LTD – Appellant
Versus
G. MURALEEDHARAN PILLAI – Respondent
WA 2166/2018
Claims under Section 33C(2) require a pre-existing right; without valid retrenchment or regularization, a workman is entitled only to casual wages.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act - Section 33C(2) - Writ appeals against the common judgment of the Single Bench - Management's appeal against Labour Court's orders granting regular wages to the workman - Court found that the workman was entitled only to casual wages as there was no valid retrenchment order - Previous judgments indicated that the workman was engaged as a casual employee and had not established a right to regular wages. (Paras 16 and 17)
(B) Labour Court - Jurisdiction under Section 33C(2) - Court reiterated that claims under this section require a pre-existing right - The workman could not claim regular wages in the absence of a valid retrenchment order or regularization of service. (Paras 10 and 15)
Facts of the case:
The Management engaged in manufacturing employed a workman as a driver who was disengaged without a valid retrenchment order. Multiple claims for wages were raised by the workman over the years, leading to various Labour Court orders. The workman claimed regular wages, which were contested by the Management.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the workman was entitled only to casual wages as there was no valid basis for claiming regular wages. The previous Labour Court decisions were inconsistent and the Management had not regularized the workman's position.
Issues: The key issues were whether the workman was entitled to regular wages and the validity of the Labour Court's orders in light of previous judgments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that without a valid retrenchment order or regularization, the workman could not claim regular wages, emphasizing the need for a pre-existing right under Section 33C(2).
Result: Writ appeals allowed; orders of the Labour Court set aside.
JUDGMENT
Amit Rawal, J.
This order shall dispose of two writ appeals preferred against the common judgment of the learned Single Bench dated 31/08/2018 in two writ petitions, that is, W.P.(C)Nos.15557/2015 and 15558/2015 preferred by the appellant Management against the order of the Labour Court in C.P.Nos.119/2005 and 12/2014 preferred under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Dispute Act; and two writ petitions, that is, W.P.(C) No.594/2017 on behalf of the Management against the order of the Labour Court in C.P.No.10/2015 and W.P. (C)No.17495/2021 preferred by the workman against the order dated 14/07/2021 in C.P.No.68/2018 rejecting the claim under (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act .
2. The appellant in two appeals/petitioner in one writ petition would be referred as Management whereas the respondent in the appeals/petitioner in the other writ petition, who was the claimant before a Labour Court would be referred to as workman. Management is indulged into the business of manufacturing of Electrical and Engineering goods and for carrying out the said activity, had employed many workers including the drivers in respect of the cars maintained for the purpose of officers etc,. There were two vacancies of driver in the Management. One of the drivers went on leave with effect from 01/06/1980 and the worker who was discharging duties of personal driver of the Finance Manager was substituted. He was disengaged from the service with effect from 03/05/1981.
3. Aggrieved of such action, an O.P. bearing No.4814/1981 was preferred in this Court. This Court vide judgment dated 14/02/1986 allowed the writ petition in the following manner-
“The O.P., is therefore disposed of with a direction that the petitioner should be paid notice pay and retrenchment compensation in accordance with law and also full wages till the date he could have been legally retrenched on valid grounds, such as termination of the vacancy. If any dispute arises between the parties as to the monetary value or the benefit the petitioner could claim under this judgment, the same will have to be decided in proceedings under Section 33C (2) of the I.D.Act. No costs.”
The aforementioned findings leads to two situations. One, this Court found that termination/retrenchment of the services of the worker was not in accordance with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Dispute Act and over in view of such situation, would continue to draw monetary benefits/wages till the formal retrenchment order is passed, leaving open aggrieved party -worker to claim compensation in terms of money by invoking the provisions of Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act .
4. Since the Management failed to pass a retrenchment order and pay the wages, the worker was compelled to approach the Labour Court by preferring C.P.No.167/1986 claiming the casual wages with effect from 03/05/1981 to 15/12/1986. The aforementioned claim was allowed by the judgment dated 04/06/1990. It was assailed before this Court and was dismissed. Again, workman sought the indulgence of the Labour Court vide C.P.No.36/1991 claiming the wages with effect from 16/12/1986 to 30/04/1991. The said claim petition was allowed by granting casual wages vide judgment dated 03/04/2006. It is pertinent to mention here that the claim of the workman seeking regular wages was declined. The said order was also not assailed by the workman but Management could not succeed in the High Court. For the period October 1990 to October 2005, the workman preferred another C.P. under Section 33C (2) bearing No.119/2005 and claimed wages as regular workman and in the alternative had also filed a statement claiming wages as a casual employee. On contest, the Labour Court vide order dated 21/01/2014 allowed the petition by granting regular wages. The said judgment was assailed in Writ Petition No.15557/2015.
5. During the pendency of the aforementioned petition, another Claim Petition was preferred by the workman bearing No.12/2014 claim
