Kerala High Court

Devi Prasad vs P.G.Chacko on 20 February, 2025

                                                  2025:KER:14955
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                 PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON

THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1946

                     WP(C) NO. 35320 OF 2019

PETITIONER:

           DEVI PRASAD,
           AGED 68 YEARS
           MANAGING PARTNER, WAYANAD METALS, PONNADA,
           MANIYANCODE P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT.

           BY ADVS.
           ASHER REVI JOB
           SRI.ANIRUDH KADAVIL
           SRI.RENOY VINCENT
           SRI.VISHNU JYOTHIS LAL
           SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR (SR.)



RESPONDENTS:

     1     P.G.CHACKO,S/O. GEORGE, PULIKKAL HOUSE,
           EMILY FAHIMA NAGAR, KALPETTA P.O., WAYANAD
           DISTRICT-673121.

     2     LABOUR COURT,
           KANNUR-670002.

           BY ADV RESMI NANDANAN


      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   20.02.2025,   THE   COURT    ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 35320 OF 2019             2
                                                         2025:KER:14955

                              JUDGMENT

The petitioner, the Management, has filed the captioned

writ petition challenging the finding contained in Ext.P3 passed by

the Labour Court, Kannur, in an application filed by the 1 st

respondent herein under the provisions of Section 33 C (2) of the

Industrial Disputes Act.

2. The 1st respondent herein is stated to have been

terminated from the service of the petitioner and when an

industrial dispute was raised by him, the same was decided in his

favor, directing him to be reinstated with 50% back wages. The

award issued as above was challenged by the Management and

pursuant to the judgment of this Court in O.P.No. 4975 of 1997, it

is stated that the matter was remanded back for consideration to

the Management-the petitioner herein. However, the 1st

respondent filed W.A.No. 1174 of 2001 and a Division Bench of

this Court has set aside the directions issued by the learned

Single judge as above, directing the reinstatement of the 1 st

respondent alone, however without any back-wages. The afore

judgment, directed the 1st respondent to be reinstated from

01.01.2002.

2025:KER:14955

3. The dispute raises thereafter. The 1st respondent

herein filed the claim under 33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputes

Act, pointing out that he was not reinstated and in that

circumstances, he was required to be paid the wages for the

period when he was kept out of service. The Labour Court,

Kannur, by Ext.P3 order, allowed the application directing the

petitioner herein to pay Rs.2,28,343/- (Rupees Two lakhs twenty

eight thousand three hundred and forty three only) to the 1 st

respondent herein along with 12% interest from 13.08.2012.

4. It is the afore order at Ext.P3 that is challenged by

the petitioner in the captioned writ petition.

5. I have heard Sri.Nandakumar, the learned senior

counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Resmi Nandanan, the learned

counsel for the 1st respondent herein.

6. The short issue arising for consideration in this writ

petition is as regards the sustainability or otherwise of the finding

contained in Ext.P3 order issued by the Labour Court, Kannur.

7. There is no dispute up to the judgment of this Court

in W.A.No. 1174 of 2001, as already noticed. The 1 st respondent

has presented the claim under 33 C (2) essentially contending

that, he was not reinstated thereafter. However, a perusal of

2025:KER:14955

Ext.P3 shows that apart from the oral contention raised by the 1st

respondent that he was not reinstated, there is no evidence

forthcoming to the effect that the 1st respondent had sought for

any reinstatement on the basis of the directions contained in the

judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.No. 1174 of 2001. It is

only in a situation where such a claim for reinstatement is made

and denied, the question of filing an application thereafter under

the provisions of Section 33 C (2) for the quantified back wages

arises. I also take note of the contentions raised by the petitioner

that in fact the 1st respondent herein reported for duty pursuant to

the directions of the Division Bench only on 24.05.2004. This

Court has already taken the view that even if there is an order

directing reinstatement passed by a competent Labour Court, the

employee has to report for duty and seek reemployment within a

reasonable period of time, and held that if such request for

re-employment is not lodged within a reasonable period of time,

the question of thereafter claiming back wages etc. in a claim

under Section 33 C (2) does not arise.

8. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the

findings contained in Ext.P3 cannot be sustained.

2025:KER:14955

9. However, I take note of the fact that the 1 st

respondent herein was admittedly working with the petitioner at

least till the date he was terminated. He was essentially a daily

wage worker and in such circumstances, I am of the opinion that

it is for the Management - the petitioner herein to compensate the

1st respondent, at least taking note of the fact, that he was

working till the termination as noticed above.

10. In such circumstances, though the 1 st respondent is

not legally entitled to entertain a claim under Section 33 C (2), I

am of the opinion that it would be in the interest of both the

parties that the petitioner pays an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the

1st respondent herein, within a period of four weeks from today.

11. In such circumstances, while allowing this writ

petition, setting aside Ext.P3, I direct the petitioner to remit an

amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the 1 st respondent herein, within a

period of four weeks from today.

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

HARISANKAR V. MENON JUDGE ANS

2025:KER:14955

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 35320/2019

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18/12/2001 IN WA NO.1174/2001.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT DATED 08/06/2007 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CP NO.60/2012 DATED 08/11/2018.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17TH OCTOBER 2005 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN THE CONTEMPT CASE(C) NO 399/2004

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM PETITION NO.

55/2006 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION DATED 25.07.2007 ALONG WITH THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, WAYANAD DATED 03.11.2004 ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY BY THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, WAYANAD DATED 24.08.2006 ALONG WITH THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTER OF WAGES FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1.06.2004 TO 30.06.2004.

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTER OF WAGES FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1.07.2004 TO 31.07.2004.

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTER OF WAGES FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1.08.2004 TO 31.08.2004.

2025:KER:14955

EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE WAGES SLIPS FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1.06.2004 TO 30.06.2004.

EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE WAGES SLIPS FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1.08.2004 TO 30.08.2004.

EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE WAGE SLIP OF V.M BABU FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1.07.2004 TO 31.07.2004.

EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE MUSTER ROLL FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1.06.2004 TO 30.06.2004.

EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE MUSTER ROLL FOR THE PERIOD FORM APRIL 1993 TO OCTOBER 1994.

EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF REGISTERED LETTER DATED 12.06.2003 BY THE MANAGEMENT TO SRI P.G.CHACKO ALONG WITH THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD ALONG WITH THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO FILED BY P.G CHACKO IN O.P 4975/97 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT R1 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 22.05.2003 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT R2 ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT. R1