Kerala High Court
The Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd vs The Labour Court on 25 July, 2025
1
W.P(C) No.16573 of 2019 2025:KER:54567
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 3RD SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 16573 OF 2019
PETITIONER:
THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, VIDHYUTHI BHAVANAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.RAJU JOSEPH (SR.)
SRI.C.JOSEPH ANTONY
SHRI. JOHN MANJOORAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM - 682031.
2 V.P.SHIVANKUTTY NARIKUZHIYIL,
IRUMBAYAM P.O., THALAYOLAPARAMBU,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686605.
3 A.V.THOMAS, VELUTHAMODAYIL, KEERITHODU P.O.,
IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685606.
4 V.K.MURALIDHARAN NAIR,
VADAKKEKUTTU HOUSE, KARIMANAL NEENDAPARA P.O.,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 686693.
5 P.D.BAIJU, PADINJARANKARAN, POTTA P.O.,
CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680307.
6 A.K.VIJAYAN, AIKKARA HOUSE, SREEMOOLANAGARAM P.O.,
ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683101.
7 LUCY JOSE, VETTIYAMKANDATHIL, NEENDAPARA P.O.,
KARIMANAL, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683693.
2
W.P(C) No.16573 of 2019 2025:KER:54567
8 SARAMA JOSEPH, NADUKKUDIGIL HOUSE, THATTEKKANI P.O.,
KARIMANAL, IDUKKI DISTRICT - 683693.
9 C.K.SARASWADHY, GOWRI SADANAM, THATTEKKANI P.O.,
KARIMANAL, IDUKKI DISTRICT-683693.
10 KRISHNAKUMAR V.V., S/O.VELAYUDHAN NAIR,
LEELA NIVAS, THEKKENADA P.O., AIYYARKULANGARA,
VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 141.
11 LAKSHMI, W/O.VELAYUDHAN NAIR, LEELA NIVAS,
THEKKENADA P.O., AIYYARKULANGARA, VAIKOM,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 141.
ADDL.R12 THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER,
THOZHIL BHAVAN, VIKAS BHAVAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
(ADDL.R12 IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 04/06/2020 IN
IA NO.1/2020)
ADDL.R13 INDIRA DEVI E.R., AGED 67 YEARS,
W/O.A.K.VIJAYAN, AIKKARA HOUSE,
SREEMOOLANAGARAM P.O., ALUVA, ERNAKULAM -683101.
ADDL.R14 NIKHIL AIKKARA VIJAYAN,
AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.A K VIJAYAN, AIKKARA HOUSE,
SREEMOOLANAGARAM P.O., ALUVA, ERNAKULAM -683101.
ADDL.R15 NISARI VIJAYAN, AGED 37 YEARS, D/O.A K VIJAYAN,
AIKKARA HOUSE, SREEMOOLANAGARAM P.O., ALUVA,
ERNAKULAM-683101.
(ADDL. R13 TO R15 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 07-02-2025
IN IA 02/2025 IN WP(C) 16573/2019]
BY ADVS.
SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY
SRI.K.V.GEORGE
SRI.P.N.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR
SRI.P.S.GIREESH
SRI.RIYAL DEVASSY
SRI.E.G.GORDEN, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.07.2025,
THE COURT ON 25.07.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
W.P(C) No.16573 of 2019 2025:KER:54567
JUDGMENT
The petitioner - the Kerala State Electricity Board Limited -
has filed the captioned writ petition seeking to challenge Ext.P20
common order issued by the Labour Court, Ernakulam, in
separate claim petitions, filed by the party respondents herein.
2. Heard Sri.Raju Joseph, the learned senior counsel for
the petitioner - Board and Sri.P.S.Gireesh, the learned counsel
for the party respondents.
3. The petitioner - Board contends that during the
construction of the Lower Periyar Hydro Electric project, it had
established various Inspection Bungalows at various places in
Idukki District, which were temporary in nature, to be maintained
till the project commission during 1997. The petitioner - Board
further states that several persons were engaged on "contract
basis", after inviting tenders for employment in the Inspection
Bungalows. They are stated to be described as "petty
contractors", expected to do the work of sweeper, caretaker,
W.P(C) No.16573 of 2019 2025:KER:54567
plumber, cook, etc. These posts are stated to be not of a regular
nature in the petitioner - Board. The petitioner - Board points out
that upon the completion of the project and its commissioning, a
union representing the party respondents approached this Court
by filing O.P.No.15080 of 1997 seeking a direction to the
petitioner - Board not to terminate the services of the
contractors. Though by Ext.P1 order dated 28.08.1997, this
Court had directed that status quo should be maintained; by
Ext.P2 judgment dated 05.02.1999, this Court disposed of the
original petition, noticing that the petitioner therein had already
approached the Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 (for short, the 'Act'), and therefore, it is for them to
work out their remedies before the said forum. By the order at
Ext.P3, the Industrial Tribunal found that though 14 workmen
who raised the industrial dispute are not eligible for
regularization, it held that their services could be terminated only
for the purpose of accommodating candidates advised by the
Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) or when the project to
W.P(C) No.16573 of 2019 2025:KER:54567
which they were engaged was completed. The petitioner - Board
had challenged Ext.P3 before this Court by filing W.P(C)
No.21068 of 2006 and the afore writ petition was heard along
with another writ petition filed by the workmen, leading to the
common judgment at Ext.P4. By the judgment at Ext.P4, it was
found that 14 persons can be termed as "contractual workmen"
under a contractual service; however, it was found that they are
not entitled for any retrenchment compensation in view of the
definition of the term "closure" under Section 2(cc) of the Act.
But, this Court held that if any benefit accrues to the workmen,
pursuant to the directions, they are free to take up the matter in
an appropriate manner.
4. During the pendency of I.D.No.12 of 1998, which was
disposed of pursuant to Ext.P3 order, some of the party
respondents approached the Industrial Tribunal by filing separate
miscellaneous petitions during the year 2001, which were kept
pending even when the main industrial dispute was disposed of
on 31.01.2005. The miscellaneous petitions were disposed of by
W.P(C) No.16573 of 2019 2025:KER:54567
Ext.P5 award on 07.09.2005. In the meantime, the party
respondents had filed separate claim petitions before the Labour
Court, claiming various amounts to be due from the petitioner -
Board herein. Though the petitioner - Board states that it filed
separate counter-affidavits, objecting the claims, the claim
petitions have been disposed of by Ext.P20 common order,
directing the petitioner - Board to make payments to the party
respondents as ordered therein. It is challenging the afore order
that the captioned writ petition is filed by the petitioner - Board.
5. The short point that arises for consideration in this writ
petition is as to whether the Labour Court was justified in
exercising the power conferred upon it under Section 33-C (2) of
the Act. The facts are not in dispute, which have already been
noticed as above. The contention of the petitioner - Board is
essentially to the effect that, under Section 33-C of the Act, only
the computation of the entitlement that has already been
crystallized is permitted, and there is no provision under the
statute for carrying out an adjudication, as is done in the case at
W.P(C) No.16573 of 2019 2025:KER:54567
hand.
6. This Court notices that in reality, the position is not as
highlighted by the petitioner - Board as above. True, there was a
dispute between the petitioner - Board and the party
respondents. The petitioner - Board had raised the contention
that the party respondents were only petty contractors and were
not entitled to any benefits. This issue had been considered in
the earlier round of litigation, which ultimately stood concluded
by the judgment of this Court at Ext.P4 dated 17.12.2016,
wherein this Court categorically found that the party respondents
(14 in number) were "contractual workmen" under a contractual
service. I am of the opinion that merely for the reason that they
have not been extended the retrenchment compensation on
account of the reason provided in Ext.P4, the dispute as regards
the status of the party respondents is not open for further
consideration. The respondents, before the Labour Court in afore
circumstances, contended that they were only being paid wages
on a daily basis at the wage fixed by the PWD, which rate was
W.P(C) No.16573 of 2019 2025:KER:54567
being revised periodically, however, not extending the revisions
to the party respondents. In this connection, this Court
specifically notices the finding in Ext.P20 order to the effect that
there was no challenge as regards the computation pointed out
by the party respondents from the side of the petitioner (see
paragraph 12 of Ext.P20). When that be so, this Court further
notices that the respective respondents were only seeking the
benefits which they were entitled on the basis of Ext.P4 judgment
as regards the non-extension of PWD rates. The quantum or the
various amounts have not been disputed, as noticed earlier.
When that be so, I am of the opinion that the provisions of
Section 33-C (2) of the Act would apply to the facts and
circumstances of the case at hand.
7. In this connection, I notice the judgment of the Apex
Court in Central Bank of India Ltd. v. P.S. Rajagopal [AIR
1964 SC 743], wherein the Apex Court has categorically found
that if the right to receive the benefit is not disputed, nothing
more needs to be done and the Labour Court can proceed to
W.P(C) No.16573 of 2019 2025:KER:54567
compute the value of the benefit in terms of money. As already
noticed, there is no dispute raised from the side of the petitioner
- Board as regards the computation provided by the claimants.
The Apex Court has categorically found as follows:
"We must accordingly hold that S.33C(2) takes within its
purview cases of workmen who claimed that the benefit to
which they are entitled should be computed in terms of
money, even though the right to the benefit on which their
claim is based is disputed by their employers. Incidentally,
it may be relevant to add that it would be somewhat odd that
under sub-s.(3), the Labour Court should have been
authorized to delegate the work of computing the money
value of the benefit to the Commissioner if the determination
of the said question was the only task assigned to the Labour
Court under sub-s.(2). On the other hand, sub-s.(3)
becomes intelligible if it is held that what can be assigned to
the Commissioner includes only a part of the assignment of
the Labour Court under sub-s.(2)."
This Court also notices the judgment relied on by the petitioner
- Board in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak
and another [(1995) 1 SCC 235]. However, the afore
judgment lays down that when there is a prior adjudication or
recognition of the claim, the provisions under Section 33-C (2)
W.P(C) No.16573 of 2019 2025:KER:54567
can be maintained. As already noticed, in the case at hand, the
issue was considered and decided in the previous round of
litigation, and therefore, the petitioner is not justified in disputing
the findings in Ext.P20.
8. In the light of the afore, I am of the opinion that the
petitioner is not entitled to succeed, as Ext.P20 cannot be said
to be incorrect or arbitrary.
In the result, the captioned writ petition would stand
dismissed.
Sd/-
HARISANKAR V. MENON,
JUDGE
ln
W.P(C) No.16573 of 2019 2025:KER:54567
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16573/2019
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP NO.27141/97 IN
OP NO.15080/97 DATED 28/8/1997.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO.15080/1997
DATED 05/02/1999.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL,
IDUKKI IN ID NO.12 OF 1998 DATED 31/01/2005.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN WPC 21068
OF 2006 AND WPC 226/2014 DATED 17/12/2016.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON AWARD IN ID (MP) 4 OF
2001 AND CONNECTED PETITIONS DATED 07/09/2005.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION CP NO.68/2008
FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 29/09/2008.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION CP 68/2008 FILED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 29/09/2008.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION CP 70/2008 FILED
BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 29/09/2008.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION CP 71/2008 FILED
BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 29/09/2008.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION CP 72/2008 FILED
BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 29/09/2008.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION CP 73/2008 FILED
BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT DATED 29/09/2008.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION CP 74/2008 FILED
BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT DATED 29/09/2008.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION CP 2/2012 FILED
BY THE 9TH RESPONDENT DATED 09/02/2012.
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION, CP NO. 75/2008
FILED BY THE FATHER OF 10TH RESPONDENT DATED
W.P(C) No.16573 of 2019 2025:KER:54567
29/09/2008.
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED IN CP
68/2008 DATED MARCH 2009.
EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT/OBJECTION
FILED IN CP NO.2/2012 DATED 26/04/2012.
EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED IN CP 74/2008
DATED 27/07/2010.
EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED IN CP 74/2008
DATED 09/09/2010.
EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY LABOUR
COURT, ERNAKULAM IN IA NO.269/2009 IN P
NO.68/2008 TO 75/2008 AND 2/2012 DATED
28/6/2012.
EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE
LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 22/11/2018.
EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED TO
THE KSEB BY THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, DATED 06.03.2020.
EXHIBIT P22 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SENT BY THE SECRETARY
ADMINISTRATION TO THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, DATED 12.03.2020.
