IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 35016 of 2008(R)
1. M/S.C.K.THAVOO AND COMPANY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR),
... Respondent
2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KUNNAMKULAM,
3. DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, THRISSUR
4. C.C.JOHNSON, S/O.CHERUKUTTY,
For Petitioner :SRI.JIJO PAUL
For Respondent :SRI.A.JAYASANKAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :06/01/2009
O R D E R
K.M.JOSEPH, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
WP.(C) No. 35016 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 6th day of January, 2009
JUDGMENT
The fourth respondent was an employee of the petitioner. A
dispute was raised by the fourth respondent under the Industrial Disputes
Act culminating in Ext.P1 award, by which it was found that the denial of
employment was not justifiable and ordered reinstatement in service with
50% backwages. The writ petition filed as also the writ appeal filed were
unsuccessful. The fourth respondent appears to have approached the third
respondent under Section 33C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act vide Ext.P3
application. Ext.P4 is relied on by the petitioner. It is the further case of the
petitioner that when the writ appeal was pending, petitioner had filed I.A.
No.903 of 2008 and the Division Bench passed Ext.P8 order of stay. The
writ appeal was dismissed . According to the petitioner, the petitioner had
paid an amount of Rs.88,200/- to the fourth respondent with the intention of
settling the matter out of court. Ext.P9 is produced as the receipt. The
challenge is against recovery proceedings. The substantial ground taken is
that until the amount due as per Ext.P1 award is quantified, respondents 1 to
3 have no jurisdiction to proceed for recovering the amount, and under
Section 33C(2) of of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court alone
WPC.35016/2008. 2
has jurisdiction to decide the question regarding computation of amounts
due under an award.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I feel that the
aforesaid position canvassed is the correct position in law. In such
circumstances, the writ petition is only to be allowed and Exts.P5 and P6 are
quashed. However, I make it clear that this will be without prejudice to the
right of the fourth respondent to seek quantification of the amount payable
under the law in the appropriate forum and to work out his remedies in
accordance with law.
(K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE)
sb