A Labour Court cannot exceed its terms of reference to decide unrelated issues. Moreover, the receipt of statutory compensation for a workplace injury does not justify the termination of an employee from a position they are capable of performing.

CR

JUDGMENT

1. The Petitioner is the Manager of Achoor Estate of a Public Limited Company by name Harrisons Malayalam Limited. The Petitioner is the Management and Respondent No.1 is the Workman in I.D. No.15/2007 on the files of the Labour Court, Kannur. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P4 Award dated 03.07.2013 of the Labour Court, Kannur, in I.D. No.15/2007 ordering reinstatement of the Respondent No.1 with 25% of back wages from 01.04.2004.

2. The Writ Petition was filed on 28.01.2014. The Writ Petition was admitted on 29.01.2014 and this Court passed an Interim Order staying Ext.P4 for a period of one month on condition that the Petitioner pays an amount of Rs.5,000/- to Respondent No.1. Though the Writ Petition came up for consideration on 26.02.2014, this Court ordered to post when moved again. Thereafter, it came up for consideration only in the year 2026. The Respondent No.1 has filed an Affidavit under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes (ID) Act, 1947, on 23.07.2020 affirming that he has not worked anywhere else after the termination of his employment by the Petitioner and that he did not work under any establishment since his employment under the Petitioner other than the Petitioner’s factory. The Respondent No.1 filed a Counter Affidavit on 13.11.2025. Even though the Respondent No.1 filed an Affidavit under Section 17B of the ID Act, the Writ Petition was not brought up to consider his claim under Section 17B of the ID Act.

3. The dispute referred for adjudication to the Labour Court was “whether the denial of employment to the Workman, factory worker of Achoor Estate, by the Management of Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. is justifiable? If not, what relief the worker is entitled to?”

4. The case of the Respondent No.1 as revealed from Ext.P2 Claim Statement is that he was an employee at Achoor Estate of the Petitioner since August 1994; that he sustained serious injuries in an accident in the factory on 29.08.2000; that his right hand below the elbow was amputated; that after treatment, the Company Doctor issued Fitness Certificate; that he joined for duty during November 2000 and continued as a Security Guard till the date on which he was denied employment; and that the denial of employment to the Respondent No.1 is an unfair trade practice and in violation of the principles of natural justice.

5. The Petitioner filed Ext.P3 Written Statement contending, inter alia, that the Respondent No.1 was only a daily rated temporary worker of the Estate; that as a result of the accident, he suffered 70% disability and an amount of Rs.2,52,155.90, including compensation and interest, was paid to him as per Ext.P1 Agreement dated 31.03.2004 in Form K under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 ; that since the Respondent No.1 was out of employment for 29.08.2000 to 02.04.2001, he was provided employment in the factory as a Watcher on a compassionate ground, as the amount of compensation was not paid to him and on payment of compensation on 31.03.2024, he was not offered temporary work considering his permanent total disablement; and that though disciplinary action was taken against the Respondent No.1 and another Watcher in October 2003 alleging theft of irrigation from the factory and both the workers were found guilty in the domestic enquiry, the other worker alone was dismissed from service and no punishment was imposed on Respondent No.1 as he was only a temporary worker.

6. The legality of the domestic enquiry was considered as a preliminary issue and as per the Order dated 11.03.2011, it was found that the finding of the Enquiry Officer is perverse and declined to accept the Enquiry Report. Thereafter, the Petitioner was given the opportunity to adduce fresh evidence and prove the charge of misconduct. On the side of the Management, MWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exts.M1 to M3 & M4 series were marked. On the side of Respondent No.1, he was examined as WW1.

7. In Ext.P4 Award, the Labour Court formul