The General Secretary vs Baby
2021 Latest Caselaw 3929 Ker

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                    PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

      WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 14TH MAGHA,1942

                   RP.No.33 OF 2021 IN WP(C). 22874/2016

 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 22874/2016(H) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA


REVIEW PETITIONER/S:

                 THE GENERAL SECRETARY
                 OLLUR MEKHALA OTTUCOMPANY TOZHILALI UNION, (CITU)
                 AVINISSERY P.O.TRISSUR DISTRICT

                 BY ADV. SRI.T.N.MANOJ

RESPONDENT/S:

       1         BABY
                 AGED 63 YEARS
                 W/O LATE P.M. DAIS, PALIEKKARA HOUSE, OLLUR POST,
                 TRISSUR-680 306.

       2         NITHIN DAVIS,
                 S/O LATE P.M. DAIS, PALIEKKARA HOUSE, OLLUR POST,
                 TRISSUR-680 306.

       3         INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL,
                 PALAKKAD-678 002.

       4         V.I.KURIVILA PARTNER
                 (ST.CYRIAC TILE WORKS) C/O C.P.JOSE, CHIRAYATHU HOUSE,
                 MARATHAKKARA P.O.TRISSUR DISTRICT-680 320.

       5         V.I.KIKKILI,
                 PARTNER (ST CYRIAC TILE WORKS) C/O P.O.JOSE, CHIRAYATHU
                 HOUSE, MARATHAKKARA P.O.TRISSUR DISTRICT-680 320.


OTHER PRESENT:

                 Shri   S GOPINATHAN SR GP
                 Shri   P.RAMAKRISHNAN FOR R1 AND R2
                 SHRI   M.UNNIKRISHNA MENON
                 SHRI   C.CHANDRASEKHARAN FOR R4 AND R5


     THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.02.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 RP No.33/2021 in
WP(C).No.22874/2016

                             -:2:-




                           ORDER

Dated this the 3rd day of February 2021

The review petition was filed at the

instance of the second respondent in the writ

petition. This Court, taking note of the

nature of termination of relationship between

the employer and workers as on 28/11/2001,

the date on which the work of the factory

came to halt, was of the view that it would

attract the provisions of retrenchment.

Admittedly, none of the workers were engaged after 28/11/2001. Therefore, this Court

modified the Award impugned directing the

workers to approach the labour court with an

application for retrenchment compensation in

accordance with the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947. The review petitioner's case is that

this Court ought to have left open the period RP No.33/2021 in WP(C).No.22874/2016

for reckoning the retrenchment compensation.

According to the learned counsel, this Court

should not have fixed the date of

disengagement with effect from 28/11/2001, as

the workers were dragged to this Court till the disposal of the judgment.

2. I do not see any reason to review

the judgment on that point as the fact

remains that disengagement was admittedly

with effect from 28/11/2001. Therefore, the

review petition fails on this ground.

3. However, the learned counsel for the

review petitioner submitted that the deposit

lying in the civil court would not be

sufficient to satisfy the claim made by the

workers. No doubt, if the claim is not

satisfied, the workers are free to enforce

such order in accordance with law. I find no

reason to review the judgment. With the RP No.33/2021 in WP(C).No.22874/2016

observation as above, the review petition is

disposed of.

Sd/-

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

JUDGE ms