Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 47780
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
AMIT RAWAL, J
IDEAL PUBLICATIONS TRUST – Appellant
Versus
ROSHITH A. – Respondent
WP(C)/4755/2022
I.SHEELA DEVI, Manu Govind A, JAYASANKAR(J-114), G.P JUSTIN JACOB
Unfair contractual practices and failure to comply with termination procedures under the Industrial Disputes Act made the reinstatement of the workman justified.
Headnote:
Labour - Employment Dispute - Industrial Disputes Act Section List - The court upheld the labour court's decision, emphasizing the unfair practice of contractual employment without regularization, violation of Section 25F, and the lack of evidence on qualifications or gainful employment, affirming the reinstatement of the workman.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent workman, initially appointed as a DTP operator, claimed uninterrupted employment since 2007 until being denied rejoining in 2020. The management contended he was merely a contracted trainee without regularization.
Finding of the Court:
The labour court found the management's practices constituted unfair labour practices. The workman’s continuous service was not disregarded, and the court noted improper termination procedures as per Section 25F.
Issues: Whether the workman was entitled to reinstatement and if the management followed proper procedures in discontinuing his employment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the workman's lengthy service and lack of proper retrenchment procedure warranted reinstatement under the Industrial Disputes Act, thus confirming the labour court's award.
Final Decision: Writ petition dismissed; labour court award upheld.
JUDGMENT
The management has assailed the award of the labour court dated 12.10.2021 rendered in I.D No.28/20. The case set up by the respondent workman was that he was appointed with the management as a DTP operator on 20.6.2007 after conducting an interview. He was given only an identity card and expected to work on all days including Sundays. On 21.08.2008, a formal order was issued engaging him as a junior DTP operator on contract basis with effect from 01.08.2008, which was for a period of one year on a consolidated remuneration. The said practice continued by the management as late as up to 2020. Thereafter, the petitioner was not permitted to rejoin. He performed his duties diligently without giving room to any complaint. In other words, his work and conduct were satisfactory.
2. The matter was referred to the District Labour Officer and finally to the labour court. Before the labour court, the case set up was that he was in uninterrupted employment from 2007 with an artificial break of few days in the month of June 2015 and has no source of income in the month of the employment. Respondent management opposed the aforementioned prayer on the ground that the workman was not an employee or working journalist. He was taken only as a trainee, casual, temporary, contractual hand and his service has not been regularized under the establishment and in the absence of the same, industrial dispute cannot be raised. With the period of service, the workman has not acquired any lien on the post of DTP operator. He was not having a prescribed qualification to work as a DTP operator as he was required to pass Plus-two/VHSC and computer application diploma certificate. The factum of renewal appointment on contractual basis was not denied.
3. Since the parties were at variance the labour court framed the issues. The workman examined himself as WW1 and brought on record W1 to W17 whereas the establishment examined MW1 and documents M1 to M19. The appointment letters have also been placed on record whereby respondent workman was appointed as a junior DTP operator from time to time from 2008 to 2020.
4. The practice of appointing the contractual workman amounts to unfair labour practice under Section 2 (ra) of the Industrial dispute Act which has been deprecated by the Supreme Court and various High Courts. No evidence has been placed on record regarding the qualification of the workman. It could not have been a case of 2(oo)(bb) as continuous service of 13 years cannot be ignored. The petitioner management did not follow the procedure of Section 25F in dispensing with the service of the workman. There was specific pleadings in the petition that the workman was out of employment from 30.6.2020. Petitioner management has not been able to place on record any evidence to show that the workman was gainfully employed. It is in that context, the award of the labour court reinstating the service with 50% back wages is perfectly legal and justified. It does not suffer from any illegality or perversity to form a different opinion than the one arrived at.
Writ petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.
SD/-
sab AMIT RAWAL JUDGE APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4755/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE I.D.NO.28/2020 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKDE BY THE PETITIONER IN ID.NO.28/2020.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD IN I.D.NO.28/2020 DATED 12/10/2021 OF THE LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ENGAGEMENT LETTER NO.P&A/CN-151/2008 DATED 21.8.2008 ISSUED BY PETITIONER TO 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RENEWAL ENGAGEMENT LETTER NO P&A/CN-137/2009 DATED 11.9.2009 ISSUED BY PETITIONER TO 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RENEWAL ENGAGEMENT LETTER NO P&A/CN-106/2010 DATED 2.8.2010 ISSUED BY PETITIONER TO 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RENEWAL ENGAGEMENT LETTER NO P&A/CN-243/2011OCTOBER, 2011 ISSUED
