Kerala High Court
Ulahannan.P.V vs The Manager on 26 May, 2025
WP(C) NO. 18742 OF 2012
1
2025:KER:36367
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 5TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 18742 OF 2012
PETITIONERS:
1 ULAHANNAN.P.V.
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O.VARGHESE, PARASSERIL HOUSE, KUPPAYAKODE PO,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
2 K.GOPALAN
KAITHACHALIL HOUSE, PUTHUPADI PO, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
3 P P JOSEPH
PALAKKAMATTATHIL HOUSE, PUTHUPADI P.O., KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT.
4 I.K.BALAN,KALLUVETTUKUZHI PARAMBIL, TAMARASSERY PO,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
5 P.M.JOSEPH, PUTHIYEDATH HOUSE, PUTHUPADI P.O.,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
6 C.C.THOMAS, CHANHA PLAKKEL HOUSE, PUTHUPADI P.O.,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
7 V.V.GOPALAN, VALIYA PARAMBATH HOUSE, PUTHUPADI P.O.,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
8 O.J.MATHAI, URUMBIL HOUSE, KODENCHERY VIA, KUPPAYAKODE
PO, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
9 K.V.JOSEPH, KOKKATT HOUSE, KAKKAD P.O., KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT.
10 P.M.BABY, PULIMALAYIL HOUSE, PUTHUPADI PO, KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT.
WP(C) NO. 18742 OF 2012
2
2025:KER:36367
11 SARAMMA, W/O.LATE N.U.CHACKO, NADUKARA HOUSE, PUTHUPADI
PO, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
12 VELAYUDHAN V.K., VELLIKETTUMMAL HOUSE, ENGAPUZHA,
PUTHUPADI PO, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
13 P.U.VENU, MUTTIL PARAMBIL HOUSE, KUPPAYAKODE PO,
KODENCHERY VIA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
14 K.M.SURESH, KOVILAKATH PADI HOUSE, KUPPAYAKODE PO,
KODENCHERY VIA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
15 P.M.THANKACHAN, POTTAYIL HOUSE, KODENCHERY PO,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
16 P.J.JOHN, PUTHIYEDATH HOUSE, KODANCHERY POST, KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT.
17 C.L.CYRIAC, CHITTAKKAT KUZHIYIL, KUPPAYAKODE PO,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE MANAGER
MALABAR CRUMB RUBBER FACTORY, PO KUPPAYAKODE, VIA
KODENCHERY, KOZHIKODE-673580.
2 KOZHIKODE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIE RUBBER MARKETING SOCIETY
LTD, CHEROOTT ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673001.
3 KOZHIKODE-673001.
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.C.ABRAHAM
SRI.NAVIA SEBASTIAN
SRI.SONNY SEBASTIAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.05.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 18742 OF 2012
3
2025:KER:36367
JUDGMENT
Ext.P3 order of the Labour Court, Kozhikode in CP
No.6/2008 is under challenge in this Writ Petition. Petitioners
are workmen who filed Ext.P1 claim petition. They were
employed in the Crumb Rubber Factory of the 2 nd respondent
Co-operative Rubber Marketing Society. By a settlement dated
15.02.2006, the wages payable to the petitioners was revised.
The settlement also provided for grade, weightage etc. A
dispute arose with regard to the honoring of the settlement in
full. In between, an award was passed in ID No.36/1997. CP
No.6/2008 was filed under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial
Disputes Act (ID Act) by the petitioners seeking various
benefits.
2. The respondents 1 & 2 filed counter statement
claiming that the management had implemented all the terms
and conditions of the settlement. The management further
contended that the award in ID No.36/97 had no relevance. The
management specifically disputed the length of service of the
petitioners and contended that adjudication of the issue is not
WP(C) NO. 18742 OF 2012
2025:KER:36367
possible under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. Petitioners filed a
rejoinder refuting the contentions in the counter statement.
3. The Labour Court proceeded in the matter and
evidence was recorded. Initially, the court passed an ex-parte
order. Respondents 1 & 2 remained absent and later filed IA
No.41/2010 to set aside the ex-parte order. It was allowed and
thereafter, respondents adduced their evidence.
4. Respondents 1 and 2 had a serious dispute
regarding the maintainability of the claim petition. The labour
court addressed the said contention and found the issue in
favour of the petitioners/workmen. However, on the 2 nd point
formulated for determination, the labour court entered into
findings against the petitioners. Therefore, this Writ Petition was
filed by the petitioners seeking to set aside Ext.P3 order and to
direct the labour court to decide the matter afresh.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The petitioners assailed the order to the extend
it rejected their claims. The claim of the petitioners that the
grade and weightage as well as benefits shall be decided as per
the date of joining of the employees was found to be not
WP(C) NO. 18742 OF 2012
2025:KER:36367
sustainable by the labour court. The labour court made
reference to Exts.P4 to P14 appointment letters in respect of
the petitioners. The court has noted that the call letter in
respect of the petitioner had clearly mentioned that he was to
be considered as a temporary unskilled worker. Other call
letters were also identically worded. Appointment letter in
respect of the 6th petitioner mentioned that the appointment is
temporary in nature. Appointment of some other workmen show
that they were engaged as badali workers. The labour court was
also of the view that they were not on the permanent roll of the
company at the time of their initial engagement. The reliance
placed on the award in ID No.36/97 was found to be without
much merit by the labour court. In ID No.36/97, the Industrial
Tribunal had not decided that the workers who raised the
dispute shall be made permanent from the date of their initial
appointment. The labour court noted that the workmen were
entitled for permanency based on the norms of seniority and
merit and as the vacancies of permanent workers arise.
7. The labour court noted that the petitioners have
calculated wages on the basis of their respective entry in
WP(C) NO. 18742 OF 2012
2025:KER:36367
service. This was obviously not in tune with the terms of Ext.P1
agreement. The workmen had a contention that the agreement
was entered into without their knowledge. The labour court,
referring to the provisions of the ID Act refused to accept the
said contention for the reason that at no point of time, any
effort was made to wriggle out of the terms of the agreement
by the workmen or their union. Ultimately, the labour court
concluded that their date of initial joining in service was not the
crucial date for fixation of pay, weightage and grade and that
the date on which the workmen were involved as permanent
workers was the crucial date for granting of benefits. Labour
court refused to rely on the benefit granted to the two similarly
situated workmen, in whose case the dispute was settled in Lok
Adalath, as the decision was not on the basis of merits.
8. After hearing the learned counsel and on
perusal of the records, I am of the view that the order passed
by the labour court is not liable to be interfered with in the
limited jurisdiction of judicial review vested with this court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. When an award of
Industrial Tribunal or an order of the labour court is challenged
WP(C) NO. 18742 OF 2012
2025:KER:36367
in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court is
not sitting in appeal over the award or order. Only if glaring
mistakes have been committed by the Industrial Tribunal/labour
court or the case involves highly erroneous appreciation of
evidence or approach contrary to the provisions of law or
breach settled legal positions are involved, this court would be
justified in interfering with the awards/orders passed by the
Industrial Tribunal/labour court.
9. In the case at hand, the Labour court after an
extensive analysis came to a conclusion that the claim of the
workmen for benefits from the date of their initial engagement
has no legal basis for the reason that in terms of the
settlement, such benefits would approve only from the date of
permanent appointment. The labour court has given sufficient
reasons in support of its conclusion and has analyzed the
dispute with reference to the provisions of the ID Act regarding
binding nature of settlements. Though the labour court has
proceeded to analyze the claim of the petitioner, repelling the
challenge regarding maintainability raised by the management,
it is to be noted that there was lack of clarity with regard to the
WP(C) NO. 18742 OF 2012
2025:KER:36367
claims raised by some of the workmen. In fact the case of each
workmen with regard to their claims were different as the date
of their entry into service and absorption as permanent workers
were on various dates. However, the labour court made an
endeavor to decide the dispute and rejected the contentions
and refused the reliefs to the workmen.
10. During the course of hearing, it was submitted
that the establishment of the respondents is not functioning as
it is in the process of winding up. Taking into account, the said
circumstances also, I do not find any reason to interfere with
Ext.P3 order.
This Writ Petition is hence dismissed.
sd/-
S.MANU
JUDGE
Nsd
