IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 3301 of 2009(R)
1. K.SARATHCHANDRAN, S/O.KUNJAN PILLAI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD,
... Respondent
2. SECRETARY, KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES
3. MANAGING DIRECTOR, ALL KERALA COTTAGE
For Petitioner :SRI.M.R.HARIRAJ
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :02/02/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC,J.
---------------------------
W.P.(C).Nos.3301 & 3306 OF 2009
---------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2009.
JUDGMENT
Challenge in these writ petitions is against the award
of the Labour Court, Kollam in I.D.Nos.6/08 and 4/08. The
issue referred for adjudication was regarding the validity of
the retrenchment of the workmen concerned. The Labour
Court found the retrenchment to be invalid and directed
that the workmen be paid the retrenchment compensation,
notice pay and compensation of of Rs.25,000/- each.
2. The first contention raised is that 3rd respondent
employer is the agent of the first respondent and therefore
irrespective of whether the 3rd respondent is defunct or not,
the Labour Court ought to have directed reinstatement
under the Ist respondent. The Labour Court while
discussing the claim for reinstatement has found that the
there is no employer-employee relationship between the
WP(c).Nos.3301/09& anor. 2
workmen and the first respondent. Labour court also found
that the third respondent is defunct since 2004. It was on that
basis that the claim for reinstatement has been rejected.
Petitioners have not substantiated before me that there was
any employer-employee relationship between the Khadi and
Village Industries Board and the petitioners. If that be so, the
conclusion of the Labour court cannot be said to be faulty.
Further the case of the petitioners is that the third respondent
is an agent of the Ist respondent and hence the Ist respondent
is liable to provide employment to them. Nothing has been
shown to me to conclude that the Ist respondent is the
Principal employer. Even if it is so, there is no provision in the
Industrial Disputes Act, creating liability on the principal
employer to provide employment.
3. It was then contended that the establishment is
functioning and therefore the compensation ought not have
been limited to 20.7.2004, when the workmen were illegally
retrenched. A reading of the award shows that the admitted
WP(c).Nos.3301/09& anor. 3
case of the parties was that the establishment was defunct
from July, 2004 onwards. It was therefore that the Labour
court limited the retrenchment compensation till that date. If
an establishment is defunct, the workmen could not have had
employment, in which case the retrenchment compensation
for the period after the establishment become defunct cannot
be claimed. Therefore the second contention also does not
deserve any consideration.
I do not find any substance in the writ petition. Writ
petition fails and is dismissed.
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/