IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 23598 of 2008(H)
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SRI.N.GOPINATHAN,S/O. NARAYANAN
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
3. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER
For Petitioner :SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, K.S.R.T.C.
For Respondent :SRI.N.SASIDHARAN UNNITHAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :15/10/2008
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C).No.23598, 23715 &
23832 of 2008
-------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of October, 2008.
JUDGMENT
All these writ petitions are filed by
the Managing Director of the Kerala State Road
Transport Corporation {for short ‘the
Corporation’} challenging similar orders passed
by the Labour Court. Suffice if the contentions
in W.P.(C)No.23598/08 are referred to.
W.P.(C)No.23598/08:
2. The first respondent was an employee
of the Corporation and he retired from service
on 31.03.2004. He filed a claim petition under
Section 33(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act
before the Labour Court claiming his dues under
the General Provident Fund account, along with
interest. Ext.P1 claim petition in this regard
was opposed by the Corporation and Ext.P2
objections were filed. Essentially, the
objection taken up was that the claim made by
the claimant before the Labour Court is on the
strength of the wage revision, as contemplated
vide agreement dated 13.4.1999 and that the
Corporation have approached the Government to
W.P.(C).NO.23598/08 & Con. cases.
:: 2 ::
give financial aid. The Labour Court considered
the objections and rightly noted that the
Corporation has not disputed the correctness of
the claim made by the claimant. But the only
plea is that its financial position is
precarious and it is not possible to undertake
more liability and the Corporation cannot
derogate from the right of the claimant, which
he is otherwise entitled to, by way of pay
revision arrears relatable to the period of
1997. Ext.P4 order passed by the Labour Court
has been challenged by the petitioner.
3. I heard learned standing counsel for
the Corporation and learned counsel for the
first respondent.
4. There is no serious dispute regarding
the entitlement of the claimant to receive the
amount as prayed for in Ext.P1 application. It
has to be noted that the claim relates to
arrears of wages, which the employee was
entitled to, on the strength of the pay revision
agreement of year 1997. In such circumstances,
there is no error whatsoever in the view taken
by the Labour Court. I do not find any grounds
W.P.(C).NO.23598/08 & Con. cases.
:: 3 ::
to interfere with the order passed by the Labour
Court.
5. Learned counsel for the Corporation
submits that the Corporation is facing
considerable financial difficulties and it is
this reason which has essentially prompted the
Corporation to challenge the order of the Labour
Court. Learned counsel prays for time to
satisfy the order passed by the Labour Court and
points out that steps are in contemplation to
satisfy the claim.
6. In the facts and circumstances, while
affirming the order passed by the Labour Court,
it is made clear that the Corporation shall be
permitted to pay the amount, as per the award of
the Labour Court, within a period of four months
from today.
Writ petitions are disposed of, subject
to the above directions.
Sd/-
(V.GIRI)
JUDGE
sk/
//true copy//
P.S. To Judge