Kerala High Court
WRIT PETITION 14720 of 2013 on 7 April 2003
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/3RD AGRAHAYANA, 1938
WP(C).No. 14720 of 2013 (L)
----------------------------CP. NO.24/2011 OF LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM.......
PETITIONER(S):-----------------------
M.V. RAJU,MANGALAPPILLY HOUSE, PONATHUPARAMBU, IRIMPANAM. P.O., PRESENTLY WORKING AS SALESMAN-CUM-ATTENDER, RAILWAY EMPLOYEES CONSUMER CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO.E4, ERNAKULAM JUNCTION, COCHIN-16.
BY ADV. SRI.P.P.JACOB.
RESPONDENT(S):
rs.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
P1- TRUE COPY OF AWARD IN I.D.NO.58/2000 DT. 07.04.2003 OF THE COURT OF THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA.OF THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA.
P2- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP[C]NO.18026/2003-U DT. 05.01.2007 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT, CONFIRMING EXT.P1 AWARD OF RE-INSTATEMENT.OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT, CONFIRMING EXT.P1 AWARD OF RE-INSTATEMENT.
P3- TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN W.A.NOS.526/2008 & 795/2008 DT. 20.06.2011 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT, CONFIRMING EXT.P2 JUDGMENT.DT. 20.06.2011 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT, CONFIRMING EXT.P2 JUDGMENT.
P4- TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM PETITION NO.24/2011 DATED 28.11.2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR COMPUTATION OF MONETARY VALUE OF AWARD.THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR COMPUTATION OF MONETARY VALUE OF AWARD.
P5- TRUE COPY OF THE CALCULATION STATEMENT DATED NIL PREPARED BY THE IST RESPONDENT SUBMITTED BEFORE MEDIATION OFFICER, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.THE IST RESPONDENT SUBMITTED BEFORE MEDIATION OFFICER, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
P5(A)- TRUE COPY OF THE CALCULATION STATEMENT DATED NIL PREPARED FOR AND ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER BY HIS EXAMINED IN EXT.P4 CLAIM PETITION.AND ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER BY HIS EXAMINED IN EXT.P4 CLAIM PETITION.
P6- TRUE COPY OF THE CALCULATION STATEMENT DATED NIL PREPARED BY AN AUDITOR ON THE REQUISITION OF 2ND RESPONDENT.AN AUDITOR ON THE REQUISITION OF 2ND RESPONDENT.
P7- TRUE COPY OF OBJECTIONS DT. 12.11.2012 FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO EXT.P6.EXT.P6.
P8- TRUE COPY OF THE 2ND CALCULATION STATEMENT RECEIVED BY 2ND RESPONDENT FROM THE MAKER OF EXT.P6.2ND RESPONDENT FROM THE MAKER OF EXT.P6.
P9- TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS OF EXT.P8 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.01.2013.2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.01.2013.
P10- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN C.P.NO.24/2011 DATED 27.02.2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-
EXT.R1ACOPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 11/02/2012.
EXT.R1BCOPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 21/01/2013 FILED BY THE SOCIETY.
EXT.R1CCOPY OF THE STAY ORDER DATED 16/02/2010 BY THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN W.A. NO.795/2008.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
rs.
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 14720 of 2013
-------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24[th] day of November, 2016
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
J U D G M E N T
1. An employee of the 1[st] respondent cooperative society has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P10 orderpassed under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act.
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows;
The petitioner was dismissed from service on30.06.1994. The dismissal was challenged by way ofraising an industrial dispute as ID No.58/2000 beforethe Industrial Tribunal, Alappuzha. By Ext.P1 award,the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated with fullbackwages. This was challenged before this Court inWP(C) No.18026/2003 by the society, which wasdisposed of by the learned Single Judge, as per Ext.P2judgment, modifying the award to the extent itdirecting the society to reinstate the workman with50% backwages. Both the petitioner and the society,
..2..
aggrieved by Ext.P2 judgment, filed separate writappeals. However, this Court did not interfere with thejudgment of the learned Single Judge. Thus, Ext.P2judgment, directing the society to reinstate theworkman with 50% backwages, has become final. Thepetitioner approached the Labour Court, Ernakulamunder Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947, claiming backwages. It is an admitted fact thatthe petitioner has been reinstated in service. Thecalculation of the amount due as backwages was theonly question. The society paid backwages as per theircalculation. The calculation of the workman was notfully accepted by the Labour Court and the LabourCourt ordered payment of 1,20,420/- to the workman₹vide Ext.P10 order. Admittedly, the said amount hasbeen paid. According to the workman, the actualamount due to him has not been calculated by theLabour Court. It is in this context that the petitionerhas approached this Court, challenging Ext.P10 order.
..3..
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and thelearned counsel for the society.learned counsel for the society.
4. It is now settled law that the Labour Court has nojurisdiction to entertain a dispute between an employeeand cooperative society. In that scenario, this Court isof the view that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction inthe matter and the matter has to be reconsidered bythe Arbitration Court under Section 69 of theCooperative Societies Act. jurisdiction to entertain a dispute between an employeeand cooperative society. In that scenario, this Court isof the view that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction inthe matter and the matter has to be reconsidered bythe Arbitration Court under Section 69 of theCooperative Societies Act.
5. It is to be noted that as far as the challenge regardingreinstatement, the matter has become final. The onlyissue is regarding the quantification of the amount asordered by this Court in Ext.P2 judgment. Therefore,this Court is of the view that the Labour Court order,Ext.P10, has to be set aside for reason of lack ofjurisdiction and the parties have to be relegated toArbitration Court. reinstatement, the matter has become final. The onlyissue is regarding the quantification of the amount asordered by this Court in Ext.P2 judgment. Therefore,this Court is of the view that the Labour Court order,Ext.P10, has to be set aside for reason of lack ofjurisdiction and the parties have to be relegated toArbitration Court.
6. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of, as follows;
Conclusion
6. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of, as follows; Ext.P10 is set aside.
..4..
If the petitioner moves the Arbitration Court within a If the petitioner moves the Arbitration Court within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copyof this judgment, the Arbitration Court shall considerthe matter and take a final decision, after hearing thepetitioner as well as the society, within a furtherperiod of one month.
It is made clear that the workman will be entitled only It is made clear that the workman will be entitled only for 50% of the backwages as ordered by this Court inExt.P3 judgment.Ext.P3 judgment.
bka/-
Sd/- A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUEJUDGEJUDGE