Deepak Exports Enterprises vs K.N.Babuji on 6 July, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RP.No. 1395 of 2008(F)


1. DEEPAK EXPORTS ENTERPRISES
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. K.N.BABUJI, KIZHAKKAE VALAYIL VEEDU
                       ...       Respondent

2. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM.

3. LABOUR COURT,KOLLAM.

                For Petitioner  :SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR

                For Respondent  :SRI.G.SREEKUMAR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :06/07/2009

 O R D E R
                          S. SIRI JAGAN, J
                ...............................................
                      R.P. No.1395 of 2008
               .................................................
            Dated this the 6th day of July, 2009

                               O R D E R

The management in an Industrial dispute namely I.D.No.

98/2000 before the Industrial Tribunal, Kollam, challenged

Ext.P1 award passed by the Tribunal in that I.D. in the writ

petition. By a detailed judgment dated 19.6.2008, I found that

there is no infirmity in the award and accordingly dismissed the

writ petition. The petitioner seeks review of that judgment. The

petitioner now contends that subsequent to the award, the

establishment itself was sold by the petitioner to another party

as a going concern and therefore they are not bound to comply

with the directions in the award. They have challenged the

judgment in the writ petition before the Division Banch in a writ

appeal. When it came up for hearing, the Division Bench

permitted the petitioner to withdraw the appeal with liberty to

seek review of the judgment and it is pursuant to the same that

this review petition has been filed.

2. I have considered the contentions of the petitioner in the

review petition.

R.P. No.1395 of 2008 -2-

3. Admittedly, the transfer of the establishment was

subsequent to the passing of the award. Therefore, I am of

opinion that the subsequent transfer would not in any way affect

the validity of the award itself. Nothing prevented the petitioner

from complying with the award and then complete the

procedural formalities prescribed in the Industrial Disputes Act,

in the case of a transfer of an undertaking, for retrenching the

workman. Admittedly, the petitioner has not chosen to adopt the

procedure prescribed in the Industrial Disputes Act itself. If the

petitioner has got a contention that it is for the transferee to

comply with the same, it is for the petitioner to take up the

matter with the transferee appropriately. That does not in any

way make the award unsustainable on the ground that

subsequently the petitioner had transferred the undertaking.

Therefore I do not find any merit in the review petition and

accordingly, the same is dismissed.

S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
rhs