IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 21947 of 2004(A)
1. SHANTILAL S/O. RATANSHI, RESIDING
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STAE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT LABOR OFFICER, ERNAKULAM,
3. SRI.K.BABU, KONEEKODATHU HOUSE,
4. SMT.LAKSHMI, W/O. LATE R.RAMAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.SHANTILAL (PARTY-IN-PERSON)
For Respondent :SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :10/12/2009
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W. P (C) No. 21947 of 2004
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 10th December, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is the management in I.D.No. 3/1996 before the
Labour Court, Ernakulam, wherein the industrial dispute raised by
the 3rd respondent and the husband of the 4th respondent regarding
illegal termination from service was adjudicated. During the
pendency of the I.D, the husband of the 4th respondent died. The
Labour Court passed Ext. P3 award in that I.D, directing
reinstatement of the 3rd respondent and payment of back wages to the
4th respondent herein as the legal heir of her husband at the rate of
Rs. 20/- per day, taking 25 days’ in a month with effect from
February, 1995 to 27-7-1997. Respondents 3 and 4 approached the
Labour Court for computing the amounts due to them as per the
award, which resulted in Ext. P5 order, whereby the Labour Court
directed payment of an amount of Rs.55,533/- to the 3rd respondent
and an amount of Rs. 15,000/- to the 4th respondent. Pursuant
thereto, Ext. P6 show cause notice was issued by the District Labour
officer to the petitioner directing him to show cause why revenue
recovery proceedings should not be initiated against him for
realisation of the said amounts under Section 33C(1) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. That show cause notice is under challenge before
me.
2. Although, originally, the writ petition was filed through an
advocate, the advocate later relinquished vakalath. When the matter
was taken up today for hearing, none appears for the the petitioner.
The petitioner is also not present. Learned counsel for respondents 3
and 4 submits that the case of the 3rd respondent has been finally
settled between the parties and as far as the 4th respondent is
concerned, she is ready to settle the matter by receiving Rs. 7,500/-
more.
W.P.C. No. 21947/04 -: 2 :-
3. I have considered the validity of the award as well as the
order under Section 33C(2), which is Ext. P2. I do not find any
infirmity in the same. In the above circumstances, recording the
submission of the counsel for respondents 3 and 4 that the dispute
between the 3rd respondent and the petitioner has been finally settled
and the 4th respondent is prepared to accept Rs. 7,500/- towards the
balance amount due to her, this writ petition is disposed of. The
petitioner shall pay the said amount within one month, failing which
the 2nd respondent shall take appropriate steps to recover that amount
from the petitioner and pay it to the 4th respondent within a period of
another one month therefrom.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/