Chendamangalam Handloom Weavers ... vs The Labour Court, Ernakulam
2024 Latest Caselaw 17078 Ker

Kerala High Court

Chendamangalam Handloom Weavers ... vs The Labour Court, Ernakulam on 20 June, 2024

Author: Dinesh Kumar Singh

Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH
     THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1946
                       WP(C) NO. 12675 OF 2012
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 27.02.2012 IN ID NO.29 OF 2008 OF
LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER:

          CHENDAMANGALAM HANDLOOM WEAVERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY
          LTD.
          NO.H.IND-115 (YARN BANK), CHENDAMANGALAM-683 512,
          REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY K.SURESH BABU.
          BY ADVS.
          SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN
          SRI.T.C.KRISHNA


RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM
          ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-18.
    2     SHYLA N.K.
          CHITTATUPARAMBIL, KIZHAKKUMPURAM, CHENDAMANGALAM P.O.,
          N.PARAVUR, PIN-683 512.
          BY ADVS.
          SRI.P.V.BABY
          SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH
          SRI.JUSTIN JACOB -SR.GP



     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P(C) No.12675 of 2012
                                       2


                              JUDGMENT

Dated this the 20th day of June, 2024

The present writ petition has been filed

impugning the award of the Labour Court,

Ernakulam dated 27.02.2012 passed in ID

No.29/2008.

2. The Government of Kerala vide G.O (Rt.)

No.2509/2008/LBR. dated 06.10.2008 referred to

the Labour Court the following industrial dispute

for adjudication:

"Whether the denial of employment of Smt.Shyla N.K is justifiable or not? If not, what relief she is entitled to?"

3. The workman was employed in the

management of the society from the year 2001

onwards continuously. She was doing some

clerical work. With effect from 18.06.2007, she

was denied employment by the society. No

written order was served on the workman by the

society on terminating her services. The

workman took the plea that the workman had

completed more than six years of continuous

service in the society and the denial of

employment to her would be against the

provisions of Section 25 F of the Industrial

Disputes act, 1947.

4. The management filed a written statement

contending that the workman was appointed on

27.09.2001 for 179 days and after the initial

period, she was again appointed for another 179

days. The workman was appointed on daily wages

and such a workman cannot claim regularization

of her appointment. It was also contended that

she was not appointed as per the provisions of

the Co-operative Societies Act and Rules made

thereunder. It was further contended that since

her appointment was not regular but temporary

therefore, the management was within its right to

terminate the engagement of the workman at any

time, and there would no violation of provisions

of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act.

5. On the basis of the pleadings, the Labour

Court framed the following issues for decision :

"1. Whether workman was denied employment by the opposite party? If so whether the denial of employment is justifiable or not?

2. If not, what relief she is entitled to?"

6. The workman got herself examined in

support of her claim as WW1 and she produced

documentary evidence in Exts.W1 to W4. No oral

evidence was adduced on the side of the

management. However, they produced some

documents which were marked as Exts.M1 to

M5.

7. The Labour Court on issue No.1 held that

the workman's claim that she was in continuous

service from 2001 to 18.06.2007, stood proved

from the oral evidence adduced by her and from

the documents produced before the court. Her

evidence could not at all get discredited. The

Exts.W1 to W4 produced by the workman would

suggest that she was working in the management

society, and her scale of pay was Rs.2900-5300

and her present pay would Rs.3,500/- besides the

allowance of Rs.2000/-. This certificate was

issued by the management itself dated

09.01.2004. Ext.W3 was the certificate issued by

the Secretary certifying that she was working in

the society for six months during the year 2001-

2002. Her work and conduct was excellent. This

certificate was dated 06.05.2002. Ext.W4 was the

proceedings of Co-operative Textile Director,

Thiruvananthapuram dated 02.01.2002. As per

the proceedings, the workman as well as one

another workman, Sheeba were permitted to

undergo training before Kannur Institute of

Handloom and Textile Technology in Dying.

8. The management withheld the production

of attendance register without any valid grounds.

In view of the best evidence withheld by the

management, the Labour Court concluded that

the workman had worked continuously till

18.06.2007 without any interruption.

9. So far as the contention of the

management that she was not appointed as per

the relevant bye-laws of the Society and against

Section 80 B of the Co-operative Societies Act as

well as Rule 182(2) of the Co-operative Societies

Rules, the Labour Court considered Section 80 B

as well as Rule 182(2) of the Co-operative

Societies Rules and held that the said provisions

are not applicable to the society in the instant

reference. What would be applicable to the

management of the society in the case was the

bye-law, Ext.W1. Clause 32 of the bye-laws of the

society empowers the Director, Board of the

management society to determine the number of

workman to be employed under the society and

their service benefits. That being so, it was held

that the employment of the workman in the

society was not illegal and not against the Rules.

10. On examination of evidence and

submissions, the Labour Court found that though

the salary for the post of the workman was in the

scale of Rs.2900 - 5300/- and allowances at

Rs.2000/- but she was paid only Rs.1,500/-. There

was no reasonable cause for the management to

deny employment to the workman. In view of the

aforesaid, it was held that she was getting wages

at the rate of Rs.1,500/-. The Labour Court has

been found that the termination was illegal and

without any cause and passed the award for

reinstatement of the workman with continuity of

service with 50% back wages.

11. The learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that the workman was daily wage

employee and her appointment was against

Section 80 B of the Co-operative Societies Act

and Rules made thereunder. An appointment

illegally made would not call for any right on

such employee for continuity of service and

therefore, the direction issued by the Labour

Court for reinstatement with continuity of service

and back wages up to 50% would not be justified

and the same is liable to be set aside. The

learned counsel for the petitioner society has also

placed reliance on the judgments in the case of

Koodaranji Service Co-operative Bank Ltd

v.Lissy [ 1993 KHC 403] and G.Thankamani v.

The Managing Directors K.S.C.S.C Ltd. [2006

KHC 481].

12. On the other hand, learned counsel for

the respondent workman has submitted that on

examination of the evidence and submissions, the

Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the

workman had worked since 2001 to 18.06.2007

continuously without any interruption. The said

assertion of the workman was not discredited by

leading any cogent and credible evidence by the

management. In fact, the management withheld

the best evidence in their possession inasmuch as

they did not produce the attendance register

despite the direction by the Labour Court. He

further submits that when the Trial Court has

found that disengagement of the workman from

the employment with effect from 18.6.2007 was

without any reason, and it would amount to

retrenchment under Section 25 F of the

Industrial Disputes Act, no interference is

required in a well reasoned decision of the

Labour Court. It has been further submitted that

the Division Bench of this Court in the case of

Director, Tourism Department v. Industrial

Tribunal [2005 KHC 57] relying on the

judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of

Mohanlal v.Bharat Electronics Ltd., [1981 (3)

SCC 225] held that if there is requirement of the

work and a daily wage employee who performed

the work was terminated without following the

procedure prescribed under the Industrial

Disputes Act, such termination would be held

against the law and the workman would be

entitled for reinstatement with back wages.

13. I have considered the submissions. This

Court is exercising Limited jurisdiction under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India. From the

reading of the impugned award, it cannot be said

that the award is not based on the evidence lead

by the parties. The Labour Court has marshaled

the evidence adduced before it and has come to

the conclusion that the workman had

continuously performed duties from 2001 to

18.06.2007. On the facts, it has been held that

the termination from the employment with effect

from 18.06.2007 was without any valid or cogent

reason. Therefore, this Court is of the view that

the impugned award does not suffer from any

perversity or patent illegality. So far as the

question of her employment being not in

conformity with the provisions of the Co-

operative Societies Act and Rules made

thereunder is concerned, it would be apt to take

note of Section 80 B of the Co-operative Societies

Act and Rule 182(2). The petitioner society is

neither a Primary Agricultural Credit Society nor

a Urban Co-operative Banks and Primary

Agricultural and Rural Development Banks in the

State. Therefore, the provisions of Section 80 B

and Rule 182(2) would not be applicable to the

facts of the present case. The Labour Court has

rightly held that what would be applicable are

the bye laws of the society, and the director of

the society is empowered to determine the

strength of the work force in the society. It is not

the case of the petitioner society that the

respondent workman was given the employment

by a person who was not authorised to appoint

and therefore, I do not find that there is any

substance in the contention of the learned

counsel for the petitioner that the respondent

workman's appointment was illegal and

therefore, void.

14. In view thereof, I find no reason to

interfere with the well reasoned award passed by

the Labour Court. The writ petition fails, which is

hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

DINESH KUMAR SINGH JUDGE AP

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12675/2012

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF CLAIM STATEMENT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 28/2/2009 IN

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN OBJECTION DATED 30/6/2009 FILED BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER DATED 21/7/09 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF AWARD DATED 27/2/2012 IN I.D.NO.29/2008.