IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP.No. 18060 of 2001(Y)
1. E SOUTH INDIAN BANK
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE LABOUR COURT,ERNAKULAM
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.H.B.SHENOY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :19/06/2008
O R D E R
C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
--------------------------------------------
O.P. NO. 18060 OF 2001
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of June, 2008
JUDGMENT
Heard senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and counsel
appearing for the respondents. Separate applications filed by the
respondents under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act are allowed by the
Labour Court holding that claimants were entitled to allowance as they
worked as Special Assistants though their regular employment was in
the cadre of Head Clerk. Contention of the petitioner is that claim is
hopelessly barred by limitation because it was made around 11 years
after the employment of the respondents. Secondly petitioner raised a
contention that claimants have not discharged the duties of Special
Assistants which alone entitle them for the claim. Counsel for the
respondents-claimants on the other hand contended that management
never raised objection against their claim that they have worked as
Special Assistants. So far as the claim of limitation is concerned, the
case of the respondents is that no limitation is provided under the
statute. On going through the order of the Labour Court, I find that
2
petitioner has not denied that claimants have worked as Special
Assistants. In the absence of any averment denying the work done by
the claimants as Special Assistants, I do not think they should adduce
any evidence towards proof of work done by them as Special
Assistants. Moreover the management has no case that Special
Assistants were available in the branches where the claimants were
employed during the relevant time so that the service of the claimants
was not required in that capacity. Therefore the claim of claimants
that they have discharged the duties of Special Assistants entitling them
for special allowance was rightly allowed by the Labour Court. It is
also not in dispute that Special Assistants were entitled to special
allowance under the Bi-partite agreement. The only issue that remains
to be considered is whether the delay in making the claim is fatal. In
the absence of any time limit provided under the statute, claim has to be
made necessarily within a reasonable time. In this case, it is seen that
claimants were continuously doing the work of Special Assistants until
claim petitions were filed. The Bank allowed the claimants to do the
work different from what they were supposed to do under the
employment which pre-supposes the bank’s willingness to pay
3
allowance which the employees are entitled to under Bi-partite
agreement. In this view of the matter, and since claimants were
continuously doing the work of Special Assistants even at the time of
making claim petitions, their claim cannot be rejected on the ground of
limitation. However, the delay in making the claim petition should not
lead to further liability to the bank in the form of interest.
Consequently, I modify that portion of the order directing payment of
interest to the claimants. If payment is not made to the claimants
within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment,
petitioner will have to pay interest at the rate ordered by the Labour
Court. Respondents will produce a copy of this judgment before the
bank and make claim for the bank to make payment within the time
stipulated above.
O.P. is disposed of as above.
(C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)
Judge
kk
4