IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 2338 of 2009(C)
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SRI. C.S.RAJENDRAN PILLAI
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, K.S.R.T.C.
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :29/01/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
==============
W.P.(C) NOs. 2338, 2339, 2340,
2348, 2361 & 2393 OF 2009
====================
Dated this the 29th day of January, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The challenge in these writ petitions is against Ext.P2 orders passed
by the Labour Court, Kollam in claim petitions filed by the workmen
concerned, invoking the power of the Labour Court under Section 33C(2)
of the Industrial Disputes Act and claiming the arrears of pay revision
benefits effected by bilateral settlement entered into between the
management and the unions. The Labour Court by these orders allowed
the claim and the KSRTC, the Management, has filed these writ petitions
challenging the aforesaid orders.
2. Although the liability for payment and the quantification of
the dues is not in dispute, the contention that is now raised is relying on
Ext.P3. Ext.P3 is an order passed by the State Government purporting to
be in exercise of its powers under Section 34 of the RTC Act and directing
to defer payment awaiting better times, which might never come.
3. However, I am not persuaded to accept the contention of the
learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of Ext.P3 order, the
petitioner is exonerated of its liability to make payment of the amounts
WPC 2338, 2339, 2340, 2348,
2361 & 2393/09
:2 :
which are payable in terms of the settlement entered into between the
management and the workmen under the provisions of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. The settlement entered into under the Industrial
Disputes Act is binding on the workmen and the management, and its
violation is penal in nature. The obligation under such a binding
settlement cannot be got diluted or deferred by invoking Section 34 of
the RTC Act, and therefore, in my view, Section 34 cannot have any
application when the obligations under the Industrial Settlement are
sought to be enforced. If that be so, Ext.P3 cannot be of any assistance
to the petitioner to challenge Ext.P2 orders passed by the Labour Court
exercising its powers under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Further, a reading of Ext.P2 orders show that Ext.P3 now relied on was not
relied on before the Labour Court.
Writ petitions fail and are dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp