IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP No. 7555 of 2000(Y)
1. INDIAN BANK
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE LABOUR COURT, EKM DISTRICT
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.E.SUBRAMANI (SR.)
For Respondent :SMT.LAKSHMI B.SHENOY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :18/02/2008
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
------------------------------------
O.P.No.7555 OF 2000
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of February, 2008
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the employer in Claim Petition No.6/93
before the Labour Court, Ernakulam filed by the 2nd respondent
herein claiming certain amounts due to the 2nd respondent. The
same was allowed by Ext.P1 order by the Labour Court directing
payment of an amount of Rs.11,326.40/- to the 2nd respondent.
Now the petitioner submits that the findings in Ext.P1 is based on
an award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Alappuzha in I.D.
No.17/94 and that award was set aside in W.A. No.2450/05 by
judgment dated 3.7.06 remanding the matter to the Industrial
Tribunal for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, pursuant
to which the Industrial Tribunal is now adjudicating the industrial
dispute afresh. Therefore the counsel for the petitioner submits
that since the basis of Ext.P1 order no longer subsists, Ext.P1
cannot have a separate existence and therefore the same is liable
to be set aside leaving the parties to work out their remedies
after a fresh award is passed in the industrial dispute, pending
O.P. No.7555/2000 2
before the Industrial Tribunal, Alappuzha which has now been
transferred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal,
Ernakulam.
2. This is opposed by the counsel for the 2nd
respondent. According to the 2nd respondent, the claim in
Ext.P1 is for difference in wages in accordance with the
bipartite settlement and therefore the contention of the
petitioner is not correct. She also submits that apart from
that, there is a claim for bonus to the extent of Rs.1636.40/-
which is not at all covered by the industrial dispute now stated
to be pending before the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal, Ernakulam.
3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.
From Ext.P1 order, I find that the basis of Ext.P1 order, as far
as difference in wages is concerned, is that the 2nd respondent
was employed continuously and regularly by the petitioner
from 1.5.1988 to 15.1.1993. The Labour court came to this
conclusion on the basis of the award which has been set aside
and is now pending re-adjudication before the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal as per the judgment of this
Court in W.A. No.2450/05. Therefore based on that finding
O.P. No.7555/2000 3
only, the Labour Court has computed difference in wages
payable to the 2nd respondent, on the basis of the bipartite
settlement, the applicability of which is also is disputed by the
petitioner. Whatever that be, the basis of the order is a
finding in the award in industrial dispute that the 2nd
respondent was employed continuously and regularly by the
petitioner from 1.5.1988 to 15.1.1993. That award having
been set aside by this Court the basis of Ext.P1 order has
ceased to exist. Therefore, I am satisfied that Ext.P1 order at
least to the extent of awarding difference in wages to the 2nd
respondent has to be set aside. I do so leaving the parties to
work out their remedies after the industrial dispute pending
before the Central Industrial Tribunal is re-adjudicated and
fresh award passed.
4. However the counsel for the 2nd respondent submits
that the claim for bonus which is not the subject matter of the
I.D. is still sustainable. The amount involved on that Court is
only Rs.1,636.40. It is not disputed that at least for some
time the 2nd respondent has worked for the petitioner bank.
Therefore I am of opinion that without going into the question
on merits the amount can be directed to be paid. Therefore
O.P. No.7555/2000 4
the petitioner bank shall pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- to the
2nd respondent in lien of her claim for bonus without going
into the eligibility. However the fact that the bonus has been
paid to the 2nd respondent shall not be relied upon by the 2nd
respondent or his union for proving any of their contentions in
the industrial dispute pending before the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal.
The original petition is disposed of as above.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
Acd
O.P. No.7555/2000 5