IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 2873 of 2007()
1. P.S.BASHEER (E.S.I. NO.1227509),
... Petitioner
Vs
1. M/S.PEARL FOOD PRODUCTS, ERAMALLOOR,
... Respondent
2. SRI.K.A.KUTTYMOOSA (PARTNER OF
3. IYSHA KUNJUMOIDEEN (PARTNER OF
4. P.M.AYSHA UMMA,
5. HAFSA AHMEDKUTTY (PARTNER OF
6. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
7. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT),
8. THE TAHASILDAR (RR),
9. THE LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM.
For Petitioner :SRI.N.R.CHANDRASEKHARAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice MR.J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :09/02/2009
O R D E R
J.B. KOSHY, Ag. CJ. & P.B HAVADASAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
WRIT APPEAL No.2873 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 9th day of February, 2009.
JUDGMENT
KOSHY, Ag.CJ,
The writ petitioner along with 54 others approached the
Labour Court by filing a petition under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial
Disputes Act seeking monetary benefits contending that the first
respondent establishment, in which they were employed, was closed
down and their services were terminated violating the provisions of
Section 25 N, 25 O etc. The respondent management contended that
during the pendency of the above claim petition, the disputes were settled.
The Labour Court found that whether there was an illegal closure and
whether Section 25 O is attracted etc., can be decided only by
adjudication raised in an industrial dispute and not under Section 33 C(2)
petition.
2. There was a conciliation and settlement which was signed
by the Management, Union and the Labour Officer regarding the issue
(marked as Exts.P17 and R1 before the Labour Court) and it is contended
that the petitioners already received the amount as per the settlement.
WA. 2873/2007 2
Management produced the receipts to show that the petitioners had
received the amount (Ext.R2 marked before the Labour Court). In the
above circumstances, the Labour Court rejected the claim petition. The
learned Single Judge endorsed the above view.
3. Proceedings under Section 33C (2) is in the nature of
execution proceedings. The rights have to be adjudicated by award in an
industrial dispute or by settlements or by service conditions. If adjudicated,
pre-existing rights are not given, the workman can file application under
Section 33C (2) to get the amounts computed by the Labour Court and
realise the same. Since the right to get the amount cannot be adjudicated in
a claim petition and the petitioner herein had received the amount in
pursuance of the settlement, we are of the view that no interference is called
for with the impugned judgment.
The Writ Appeal is dismissed.
J.B. KOSHY,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
P. BHAVADASAN,
JUDGE
sb.