Kerala High Court

Thaliparamba Municipality vs State Of Kerala on 21 May, 2024

Author: Murali Purushothaman

Bench: Murali Purushothaman

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
    TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2024/31ST VAISAKHA, 1946
                      OP(LC) NO. 1811 OF 2013
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CP NO.43 OF 2006 OF LABOUR
                            COURT, KANNUR
PETITIONER:

            THALIPARAMBA MUNICIPALITY
            THALIPARAMBA
            PIN - 670 141,
            KANNUR (DISTRICT),
            REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

            BY ADVS.
            SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH
            SMT.BINDUMOL JOSEPH
            SRI.B.S.SYAMANTHAK
RESPONDENTS:

    1       STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO LABOUR DEPARTMENT,
            GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
            THIRUVANANTHAURAM - 1.
    2       LABOUR COURT
            KANNUR - 670 101.
    3       SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR
            REVENUE RECOVERY TALUK OFFICE,
            THALIPARAMBA
            PIN - 670 141, KANNUR (DISTRICT).
    4       SMT. SATHI INDERAMMEL
            D/O. BHASKARAN, INDERAMMEL HOUSE,
            THALIPARAMBA P. O,
            PIN - 670 141,
            KANNUR DISTRICT.

            SRI. P.U.SHAILAJAN
            SRI. JUSTIN JACOB - GP


     THIS   OP   (LABOUR   COURT)   HAVING   BEEN   FINALLY   HEARD   ON
12.04.2024, THE COURT ON 21.05.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 O.P. (L.C) No.1811 of 2013

                                2




                             JUDGMENT

This OP(LC) is filed by Thaliparamba Municipality

challenging Ext.P9 order passed by the Labour Court,

Kannur rejecting the application for condonation of delay

in setting aside ex-parte order in an application filed under

section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for

short, I.D Act).

2. The 4th respondent, who was a sanitation worker

of the Municipality, filed Claim Petition No.43/2006 under

section 33C(2) of the I.D Act before the Labour Court,

Kannur contending that she was appointed as Badli worker

from 17.04.1997 to 19.07.2001 continuously without break

and is entitled for arrears of wages amounting to

Rs.32,665.10 for the said period. The Secretary of the

Municipality, the respondent therein, was set ex-parte and

an ex-parte order was passed on 22.07.2009. Later,

Ext.P6 application was filed by the Municipality to set aside

the ex-parte order and the same was allowed on

12.01.2011 after condoning the delay of 307 days.

However, even thereafter, the Municipality did not enter

appearance or filed any counter statement. Accordingly,

the Municipality was again set ex-parte. The Labour Court,

by Ext.P3 order dated 10.03.2011, found that the 4 th

respondent's claim can be adjudicated under section

33C(2) and ordered that the 4th respondent is entitled to

realise the sum of Rs.32,665/- from the Municipality along

with 6% interest p.a from the date of application till

payment.

3. The petitioner filed Ext.P6 interlocutory

application to set aside Ext.P3 ex-parte order in CP

No.43/2006 along with Ext.P7 interlocutory application to

condone delay of 368 days in seeking to set aside the

ex-parte order. The petitioner filed OP(LC) No.988/2012

before this Court for direction to the Labour Court to

consider and pass orders on the aforesaid interlocutory

applications and this Court, by Ext.P8 judgment, directed

the Labour Court to dispose of the said interlocutory

applications within three months and ordered the

proceedings for realisation of the amounts due under

Ext.P3 to be put on hold till the interlocutory applications

are disposed of. The Labour Court, by Ext.P9 order,

rejected the application for condonation of delay in

seeking to set aside Ext.P3 ex-parte order and

consequently dismissed the application to set aside the

ex-parte order. Pursuant to Ext.P9, Ext.P10 recovery

notice was issued to the petitioner. Challenging Exts.P9

and P10, this Original Petition is filed.

4. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit

rebutting the averments in the original petition and

producing Ext.R4(a) judgment wherein this Court in an

identical case filed by the petitioner Municipality held that

a claim for equal remuneration can be adjudicated by the

Labour Court since the claim is for an existing right.

5. Heard Smt.Bindumol Joseph, the learned counsel

for the petitioner, Sri.P.U Shailajan, the learned counsel for

the 4th respondent and Sri.Justin Jacob, the learned

Government Pleader.

6. Ext.P1 claim petition filed by the 4th respondent

on 21.6.2006 was allowed ex-parte on 22.07.2009. The

application of the Municipality to set aside the ex-parte

order was allowed after condoning the delay of 307 days.

Even thereafter, the Municipality neither appeared nor

filed counter statement. The Labour Court was therefore

constrained to pass Ext.P3 ex-parte order allowing the

claim of the 4th respondent under section 33C(2) of the I.D

Act. Thereafter, Ext.P6 application to set aside Ext.P3

ex-parte order was filed by the Municipality along with

Ext.P7 application to condone the delay in seeking to set

aside the ex-parte order. OP(LC) No.988/2012 was filed

before this Court seeking for direction to the Labour Court

to consider Exts.P6 and P7 applications and this Court, by

Ext.P8 judgment, directed the Labour Court to consider

those applications within a time frame. Exts.P6 and P7

applications were rejected by the Labour Court as per

Ext.P9. The Labour Court found that the petitioner

Municipality has not shown sufficient cause for

condonation of delay of 368 days in seeking to set aside

Ext.P3 order. The Labour Court found that after setting

aside the earlier ex-parte order on 12.01.2011, the claim

petition was posted on 03.02.2011. The petitioner did not

enter appearance and no counter statement was filed and

the petitioner was again set ex-parte and Ext.P3 ex-parte

order was passed on 10.03.2011. The Labour Court

observed that even after mulcting cost on the Secretary of

the Municipality though the Municipality was given

opportunity to contest the case by filing counter

statement, the Municipality did not prosecute the case.

The Labour Court disbelieved the version of the

Municipality that it came to know about the ex-parte order

only on receipt of the revenue recovery notice. Having

found that there is no valid ground for condonation of

delay of 368 days in seeking to set aside the ex parte

order, the Labour Court, by Ext.P9 order, dismissed Exts.P6

and P7 applications.

7. The Labour Court has found that the petitioner

Municipality has not shown sufficient cause for

condonation of delay. There is no reason to take a

different view. There is an inexplicable delay of 368 days in

seeking to set aside Ext.P3 ex-parte order. Right from the

institution of Ext.P1 claim petition, it can be seen that the

petitioner Municipality was not diligent and vigilant in

defending the claim petition. The Municipality was set

ex-parte and an order was passed in the claim petition on

12.01.2011. The said ex-parte order was set aside after

condoning the delay of 307 days. Even thereafter, the

Municipality did not prosecute the matter and Ext.P3

ex-parte order was passed. The application to set aside

the ex-parte order was filed with an application to condone

the delay of 368 days. No sufficient cause has been shown

for condonation of the said delay.

In Ext.P3 order, the Labour Court has considered the

contention of the Municipality regarding the jurisdiction of

the Labour Court to adjudicate Ext.P1 claim under section

33C(2). Referring to Ext.R4(a) judgment in a writ petition

filed by the Municipality in respect of another employee,

this Court has held that since the claim is made in respect

of an existing right, the Labour Court can adjudicate the

claim. Relying on Ext.R4(a) judgment, the Labour Court, in

Ext.P3 order, found that Ext.P1 claim petition is

maintainable and the Labour Court can adjudicate the

claim. In Ext.P1 claim petition under section 33C(2), the

4th respondent has claimed the balance of arrears of wages

from 17.04.1997 to 19.07.2001. The 4 th respondent

claimed that she has been paid lesser wages being a

female employee, violating the principle of equal pay for

equal work. The claim for arrears of wages is an existing

right which can be adjudicated by the Labour Court under

section 33C(2). Further, in Ext.R4(a) judgment, this Court

has upheld the claim of similarly placed person after

rejecting the contention put forward by the Municipality

that such claims cannot be adjudicated under section

33C(2). Therefore, on merits as well as on ground of delay,

I do not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P9 order.

Accordingly, the Original Petition is dismissed. The

petitioner shall pay the amount ordered in Ext.P3 along

with interest after deducting amount if any already paid to

the 4th respondent, within a period of two months from the

date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE

SPR

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF CLAIM PETITION 43/2006 DATED 21.06.2006 ON THE FILES OF LABOUR COURT, KANNUR.

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.3 PETITIONER MUNICIPALITY DATED 23-04-2001. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CLAIM PETITION NO.43 OF 2006 DATED 10-03-2011. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 30-01-2012 UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT.

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMND NOTICE DATED 30-01-2012 UNDER SECTION 34 IN FORM NO.10 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT.

EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION CMP NO.9 OF 2012 IN CLAIM PETITIONER NO.43 OF 2006 OF SETTING ASIDE EX-PARTE ORDER. EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION CMP NO 8 OF 2012 IN CLAIM PETITION NO.43 OF 2006 FOR CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING APPLICATION FOR SETTING ASIDE EX-PARTE ORDER. EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN ORIGINAL PETITION (LABOUR COURT( NO.988/2012 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 06-02-2013.