Kerala High Court
Babumon Joseph vs District Labour Officer, Malappuram on 14 November, 2024
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
WA NOS. 1477 & 1703 OF 2024 1 2024:KER:88651
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 23RD KARTHIKA, 1946
WA NO. 1477 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.12.2024 IN WP(C) NO.24666
OF 2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT(S)/4TH RESPONDENT :
BABUMON JOSEPH,
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O.JOSEPH, PANTHANAZHIKUNNEL HOUSE,
MUKKATTA, NILAMBUR P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 329, PIN - 679329
BY ADVS.
M.R.MINI
VINOD RAVINDRANATH
MEENA.A.
K.C.KIRAN
ANISH ANTONY ANATHAZHATH
THAREEQ ANVER K.
NIVEDHITHA PREM.V
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 & 5 & 6 :
1 UNNITHERI
AGED 68 YEARS, S/O MOIDU,
RESIDING AT PUTHIYAPRA HOUSE,
KANNACHANKUNNU, AMARAMBALAM,
WA NOS. 1477 & 1703 OF 2024 2 2024:KER:88651
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679332
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM
MALAPPURAM, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
2 CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM., PIN - 676505
3 THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR)
NILAMBUR TALUK, NILAMBUR P.O., MALAPPURAM,,
PIN - 679329
4 THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER
MALAPPURAM, CIVIL STATION COMPLEX,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505
5 MOLLY JOSEPH
W/O LATE ABRAHAM, NANNIKATUPADAVIL,
MUKKATTA, NILAMBUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRIT,
PIN - 679329
6 SMT. SINI JOSEPH
W/O RAJU THOMAS, THALLISSERI VEEDU,
KANJIKULAM P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 678596
SR GP SRI T K VIPINDAS
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.11.2024,
ALONG WITH WA NO.1703/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
WA NOS. 1477 & 1703 OF 2024 3 2024:KER:88651
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 23RD KARTHIKA, 1946
WA NO. 1703 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.12.2023 IN WP(C) NO.2144 OF
2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER :
BABUMON JOSEPH,
AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH,
PANTHANAZHIKUNNEL HOUSE, MUKKATTA,
NILAMBUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.,
PIN - 679329
BY ADVS.
M.R.MINI
VINOD RAVINDRANATH
MEENA.A.
ANISH ANTONY ANATHAZHATH
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS :
1 DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, MALAPPURAM,
CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM-676505.,
PIN - 676505
2 K.T.ALAVI,
PRESIDENT, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT ESTATE
LABOUR CONGRESS (INTUC),
POOKOTTUMPADAM P.O. -679332, NILAMBUR TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 679332
WA NOS. 1477 & 1703 OF 2024 4 2024:KER:88651
UNNITHERI,
S/O.MOIDU, PUTHIYARA HOUSE, KANNACHANKUNNU,
3 AMARAMBALAM P.O., -679332, NILAMBUR TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 679332
4 THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR),
NILAMBUR TALUK, NILAMBUR P.O., -679329,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 679329
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.11.2024,
ALONG WITH WA NO.1477/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
WA NOS. 1477 & 1703 OF 2024 5 2024:KER:88651
AMIT RAWAL & EASWARAN S. , JJ.
-------------------------
W.A. Nos.1703 & 1477 of 2024
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of November, 2024
JUDGMENT
Easwaran S., J.
The appellant herein is the employer. The 3 rd respondent
herein is the workman who was employed by the appellant for the
purpose of rubber tapping. Claiming denial of employment, the
workman raised dispute under the provisions of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. Since the conciliation did not succeed, the
appropriate Government referred the dispute before the Labour court,
Kozhikode. The issue raised for consideration was "whether the denial
of employment to Sri. Unnitheri, tapper by the employer, Smt. Mary
Joseph is justifiable? If not, what is the remedy?". While the dispute
was pending before the Labour Court Smt. Mary Joseph expired and
her legal heirs were impleaded. The appellant contended that though
the workman joined the service in 1992 he worked continuously up to
6.02.2012 and in the year 2011 had taken four months leave and
WA NOS. 1477 & 1703 OF 2024 6 2024:KER:88651
thereafter did not report for duty thus, there was an abandonment of
the claim. The labour court by award dated 7.09.2016 found that the
denial of employment to the workman Sri. Unnitheri was not proper
and ordered that he be entitled for the retrenchment compensation
under Section 25(f) of the ID Act. Since the employer did not pay the
aforesaid amount, the workmen was forced to approach the tribunal
again with an application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act which
resulted in an order dated 16.02.2017. The labour court allowed the
application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, the workman
approached the District Collector for initiation of Revenue recovery
proceedings and at that point of time Writ Petition No.2144 of 2020
was filed challenging the award. While writ petition was pending, the
workman approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.24666 of
2021 seeking for implementation of the award passed by the labour
court. The learned Single Judge, after considering the entire pleading
on record, found that there is an inordinate delay in preferring the writ
petition challenging the award and hence declined to interfere with the
award passed by the labour court. Consequently, Writ Petition
WA NOS. 1477 & 1703 OF 2024 7 2024:KER:88651
No.24666 of 2021 was allowed directing the respondents to complete
the revenue recovery proceedings within a period of six months from
the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Aggrieved by the
common judgment, the appellant has approached this Court with this
intra court appeal.
2. Heard Sri. TR Krishnanunni assisted by Mini MR, the
learned counsel for the appellant.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant pointed
out that the delay in challenging the award was explained before the
learned Single Judge therefore, the writ petition ought to have been
entertained by the learned Single Judge. It was also submitted that it
is a case where the workman refused to join duty and no
retrenchment compensation could be directed to be paid by the
appellant who are only legal heirs of the deceased employer.
4. We have considered the submissions raised across the Bar
and have perused the memorandum of appeal and the impugned
judgment.
WA NOS. 1477 & 1703 OF 2024 8 2024:KER:88651
5. Admittedly, the award of the labour court was passed in
the year 2016 and the writ petition was preferred in the year 2020. On
a perusal of the writ petition, we find that no explanation is given for
the delay caused in preferring the writ petition. It is also pertinent to
note that the revenue recovery proceedings were initiated as early as
in the year 2018. Thus, it is clear that there is delay and latches on
the part of the appellant in approaching this Court.
6. It is now settled law that exercise of writ jurisdiction by
this Court is discretionary in nature. While entertaining a writ petition
challenging the award of the labour court, this Court cannot normally
go into the facts of the case, still, if the appreciation of the facts is
perverse, this Court can certainly exercise its jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. Admittedly, the delay in preferring
the writ petition remains unexplained. In that view of the matter,
especially since the learned Single Judge had refused to exercise its
discretion, in the intra court appeal, this Court should be slow to
interfere with the findings rendered by the learned Single Judge.
In view of the above, we do not propose to call the
WA NOS. 1477 & 1703 OF 2024 9 2024:KER:88651
respondent workman to appear in opposition to the contentions raised
in the writ appeals. The writ appeals lack merit and hence dismissed
accordingly.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL
JUDGE
Sd/-
EASWARAN S.
JUDGE
NS
