IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 3632 of 2004(G)
1. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, NILAMBUR.
... Petitioner
2. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, EDAVANNA.
Vs
1. SRI.K.T.MOHAMEDALI, S/O. BEERAN,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent :SRI.THOMAS ANTONY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :13/08/2009
O R D E R
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
....................................................................
W.P.(C) No.3632 of 2004
....................................................................
Dated this the 13th day of August, 2009.
JUDGMENT
The respondent was taken by the Forest Department as a casual
employee for protecting the Cashew Plantation in the year 1979. However,
he was denied employment from 1982 onwards. After around 9 years,
respondent filed an application for referring the industrial dispute for
decision by the Labour Court. Initial award of the Labour Court was to
grant retrenchment compensation to the respondent, against which he
approached this court and this court remanded the matter again to the
Labour Court which issued Ext.P4 award against which State has filed this
W.P.(C). I heard Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners and
counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. On going through the award and after hearing both sides, I notice
that the departmental authorities have not furnished any details about period
of employment or nature of employment, even though their specific case
was that respondent was employed only as a casual employee and he was
not on regular employment. If respondent was only a casual employee
engaged on daily basis, then of course he is not entitled to any benefit.
2
However, the Labour Court assumed that he was employed for three years
continuously and was denied employment without any justification.
However, there is no finding that the respondent was appointed against a
regular post or that Government has substituted the respondent with any
other employee to show that the vacancy still remained. Strangely
respondent challenged denial of employment after nine years of release from
service. However, the finding of the Labour Court is that he is not entitled
to any back wages until then. However, the Government’s challenge is
against order reinstating the respondent. The respondent is presently over-
aged to be absorbed in Government service. Therefore, reinstatement does
not arise at all. Balance is only question of entitlement of the respondent for
back wages without doing any work. I do not find any justification for
giving wages to the respondent for the period he has not done any work. In
the first place, he would have been employed gainfully elsewhere and
obviously that is the reason why he did not claim employment under the
Government or challenge his release from service for nine years.
Therefore, I am of the view that litigation is only an afterthought and on the
encouragement of somebody. This court under interim orders ordered
payment of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent. I feel this amount will be
sufficient compensation for denial of employment to the respondent. The
3
W.P. is accordingly disposed of modifying Ext.P4 by directing payment of
Rs.10,000/- to the respondent by the petitioners as compensation for denial
of employment. If payment is already made, then the matter will be treated
as finally settled and if payment is not made, petitioner shall pay the amount
of Rs.10,000/- without any delay.
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Judge
pms
