N.Sreenivasan vs N.Vidhyadharan on 15 January, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 34462 of 2008(C)


1. N.SREENIVASAN, DIRECTOR, A-ONE MILK
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. N.VIDHYADHARAN,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM.

3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R) TALUK

4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, SOORANADU SOUTH,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.O.D.SIVADAS

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :15/01/2009

 O R D E R
                       ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                      ==============
                 W.P.(C) NO. 34462 OF 2008 (C)
                ====================

            Dated this the 15th day of January, 2009

                         J U D G M E N T

The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P3, an order

passed by the 2nd respondent in Claim Petition No.40/07 filed by the

1st respondent invoking its power under Section 33(C)(2) of the

Industrial Disputes Act.

2. Admittedly, the claim was based on the award in ID

43/01 rendered by the Industrial Tribunal, Kollam. By that award,

the workmen was ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service

and full back wages. This award has become final. It is claiming the

monetary benefits arising out of this award that the workmen filed

the claim petition. Counsel for the petitioner contends that it was

beyond the jurisdiction of the Labour Court in quantifying the

benefits, and that such quantification is permissible only in a regular

reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act.

3. I am not persuaded to agree with the above contention.

The reason is that, under the award, the workmen is entitled to

WPC 34462/08
:2 :

reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. This

necessarily means that the workmen is entitled to all monetary

benefits as if he had continued in service. It is the settled position of

law that in a proceedings under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, the Labour Court is entitled to quantify the monetary

benefits granted in an award. In this case, this is precisely what the

Labour Court has done. The right of the workmen to receive

monetary benefits having been accepted by the Labour Court while

adjudicating the Industrial Dispute, there is absolutely no necessity

for yet another dispute for quantifying the benefits. This is what is

sought to be achieved in a proceedings under Section 33(C)(2) of

the I.D.Act. For these reasons, the quantification made by the

Labour Court in Ext.P3 is well within its jurisdiction and cannot be

impugned.

4. Writ petition fails and is dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks for a breathing time

for making payment of the amount ordered under Ext.P3. It is

WPC 34462/08
:3 :

directed that if payment of the full amount is made in two monthly

instalments, the first instalment on or before 31st of January 2009

and second instalment on or before 28th of February, 2009, the

recovery proceedings shall not be initiated.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp