Kerala High Court
The Managing Director (Mr.Thahir ... vs Manoj Kumar.K on 31 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
Wednesday, the 31st day of August 2022 / 9th Bhadra, 1944
WP(C) NO. 28186 OF 2022 (W)
PETITIONER:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR (MR.THAHIR KALLAT) KALLAT BUILDERS PRIVATE
LIMITED, 1ST FLOOR, SKY FACE APARTMENT, KALPATTA NORTH, WAYANAD -
673 121.
RESPONDENTS:
1. MANOJ KUMAR.K., KRISHNALAYAM, P.O VATTOLI BAZAR, ARAPEEDIKA,
BALUSSERY, KOZHIKODE - 673 612.
2. THE LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE CIVIL STATION, ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE -
673 020, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY.
Writ petition (civil) praying inter alia that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed along with the WP(C) the High Court be
pleased to pass an interim order staying the operation and implementation
of the award in I.D.No.40/2020 of the 2nd respondent Labour Court, pending
disposal of the Writ Petition (Civil).
This petition coming on for admission upon perusing the petition and
the affidavit filed in support of WP(C) and upon hearing the arguments of
SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR (SENIOR ADVOCATE) along with M/S.M.GOPIKRISHNAN
NAMBIAR, K.JOHN MATHAI, JOSON MANAVALAN, KURYAN THOMAS, PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
& RAJA KANNAN, Advocates for the petitioner, the court passed the
following:
AMIT RAWAL, J.
=================
W.P.(C) No.28186 of 2022
=====================
Dated this the 31st day of August, 2022
ORDER
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
respondent workman was employed as a Project
Co-coordinator in the Calicut branch vide order dated
21.7.2011. The aforementioned office closed on 30.4.2020.
The salary per month was Rs.25,000/-. Since there was a
closure of the Unit, the award of the labour court misread and
misinterpreted the provisions of Section 25FFF of the
Industrial Dispute Act by holding that it was a condition
precedent to pay compensation before holding of the
compensation whereas the law on this point is that it is not a
condition precedent as there is no prohibition for making the
compensation at a later date in the case of closure of unit.
Labour Court abdicated in awarding the compensation of
Rs.3,99,000/- while taking his income of Rs.25,000 and
compensation equivalent to 1.33 years of salary ie.,
25000x12x1.33. In support of the aforementioned
contentions relies upon the judgment of Supreme Court in
Hathising Manufacturing Company Ltd., and Others v. Union
of India and others (1960 (2) LLJ 1). At the best the workman
was entitled to 15 days of salary for a period of 9 years + one
month of salary of Rs.25,000/- which would come to
Rs.1,37,500/-.
Issue notice before admission subject to payment of
Rs.1,75,000/- which includes litigation expenses to the
respondent workman by way of demand draft or pay order.
The award of the labour court awarding the compensation of
Rupees four lakhs shall remain stayed.
Post on 23.11.2022.
sd/-
sab AMIT RAWAL, JUDGE
sa/131219sassssabs10.
31-08-2022 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
