Kerala High Court
Akbar Unnian Alavi vs Surekha. P.R on 25 February, 2025
Author: Murali Purushothaman
Bench: Murali Purushothaman
O.P.(LC) No.2 of 2025 1
2025:KER:16155
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1946
OP(LC) NO.2 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.11.2021 IN CP NO.23 OF 2021 AND
ORDER DATED 28.11.2022 IN I.A.NOS.250 AND 251 OF 2022 IN
C.P.NO.23 OF 2021 OF THE LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE
PETITIONER:
AKBAR UNNIAN ALAVI, AGED 44 YEARS
S/O UNNI N HAJI, MANAGING DIRECTOR,
M/S. AL-AKBAR ENTERPRISES AND TRAVEL SERVICES,
1ST FLOOR, MARKAZ COMPLEX, MAVOOR ROAD,
CALICUT, PIN - 673004
BY ADVS.
RAMEEZ NOOH
DANIC ANTONY
FATHIMA K.
AMIN ALI ASHRAF
SHAFNA SINU
RESPONDENTS:
1 SUREKHA P.R, AGED 42 YEARS
PAYANTHRAMMAL, PILASSERI, KUNNAMANGALAM,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673571
O.P.(LC) No.2 of 2025 2
2025:KER:16155
2 AISWARI K, AGED 33 YEARS
VASANTHAM HABITATE, P.M.KUTTY ROAD,
NADAKKAVU, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673006
3 FAVAS M.R, AGED 29 YEARS
SHARFA MANZIL, ARAKINAR, BEYPORE, PIN - 673028
THIS OP (LABOUR COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
O.P.(LC) No.2 of 2025 3
2025:KER:16155
JUDGMENT
The respondents filed Ext.P1 petition under
Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
before the Labour Court, Kozhikode claiming arrears
of salary from the petitioner-employer. The Labour
Court passed Ext.P2 ex parte order on 16.11.2021
allowing the claim petition. The petitioner filed
Ext.P4 application to set aside the ex parte order
along with Ext.P3 application to condone the delay
of 275 days in preferring Ext.P4. The Labour Court
allowed Ext.P4 application by Ext.P5 order dated
28.11.2022 on condition that the petitioner pays
Rs.5,000/- each to the respondents as costs. The
petitioner was also directed to file objection to
the claim petition within ten days from the payment
of cost.
2. The petitioner states that he was unaware
of Ext.P5 order as the order was not communicated to
2025:KER:16155
him by his Counsel. He came to know about the order
when he received Ext.P6 revenue recovery notice. The
petitioner has filed this original petition
challenging Exts.P2 and P5 orders.
3. Heard the learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
4. In Ext.P5 order, it is stated that, though
notice was served on the petitioner in the claim
petition, he did not appear. It is further stated
that, one of the staff of the petitioner appeared on
26.10.2021 and the case was posted to 05.11.2021 for
objection. On that day, the petitioner was absent
and there was no representation on his behalf
either. On 11.11.2021 also, the petitioner remained
absent and he was set ex parte. Though the Labour
Court found that notice was served on the petitioner
and there were no sufficient reasons to condone the
delay of 275 days, the application to set aside the
2025:KER:16155
ex parte order was allowed on terms to give the
petitioner an opportunity to contest the claim
petition on merits. However, the petitioner did not
pay cost within the time stipulated by the Labour
Court or thereafter, with the permission of the
Court. The petitioner has approached this Court only
on being served with the revenue recovery notice.
The reason stated by the petitioner for not
complying with Ext.P5 order is that his Counsel did
not inform him about the same. When an application
to set aside the ex parte order is filed by the
petitioner, he cannot be heard to say that he was
not aware of the said order. The petitioner was not
diligent or vigilant in defending the case before
the Labour Court. Though sufficient opportunity was
provided to the petitioner to file objection and to
contest the claim, he did not avail of the said
opportunity. The claim petition is of the year 2021.
2025:KER:16155
The attempt of the petitioner is only to protract
the proceedings and to avoid payment of arrears of
salary ordered by the Labour Court.
I do not find any error in Ext.P5 order to
interfere with in exercise of the jurisdiction of
this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India. Accordingly, the Original Petition is
dismissed.
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
JUDGE
sp/25/02/2025
2025:KER:16155
APPENDIX OF OP(LC) 2/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM PETITION FILED BY
THE RESPONDENTS AS C.P. NO. 23 OF 2021
DATED NIL FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE LABOUR
COURT, KOZHIKODE
Exhibit P2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
16.11.2021 IN C.P. NO. 23 OF 2021 ON THE
FILES OF THE HON'BLE LABOUR COURT,
KOZHIKODE
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A NO. 250 OF 2022
DATED 25.07.2022 IN C.P NO. 23 OF 2021 TO
CONDONE THE DELAY
Exhibit P4 TRUE OF THE I.A NO. 251 OF 2022 DATED
25.07.2022 IN C.P NO. 23 OF 2021 TO SET
ASIDE THE EXT.P2 ORDER
Exhibit P5 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
28.11.2022 IN I.A NO 250 OF 2022 AND I.A
NO.251 OF 2022 IN C.P NO. 23 OF 2021
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE
DATED 29.07.2023 VIDE RRC NO.
2023/7028/11 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY
TAHSILDAR OF KOZHIKODE TALUK
