WP(C)/4769/2023 of RAJESH KUMAR N M, Vs PRESIDENT, PANOOR CO-OPERATIVE BUILDING SOCIETY , on 10 April 2025

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who is stated to have been employed as a sweeper with the respondent herein, has filed the captioned writ petition, seeking to challenge Ext.P5 Award issued by the Labour Court, Kannur, to the extent it has only extended a lump sum payment of Rs.20,000/- as compensation since the petitioner herein was allegedly denied employment.

2. Heard Smt.Sheela, representing Sri.Jayakumar Namboodiri, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Thushara K, the learned counsel for the respondent herein.

3. The short issue arising for consideration in this writ petition, as noticed earlier, is as regards the sustainability or otherwise of the findings contained in Ext.P5 order issued by the Labour Court.

4. This Court notices that the petitioner herein has raised a dispute, essentially contending that he was denied employment illegally by the respondent herein. The respondent has also filed a detailed statement before the Labour Court.

5. Noticing the rival submissions, the Labour Court found that the respondent herein is entitled to maintain a claim and that the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Dispute Act, were not complied with while denying the employment to the petitioner herein. Therefore, the denial of the employment to the petitioner was found unjustified.

6. Even on the face of the afore, the question for reinstatement along with back wages was separately considered by the Labour Court insofar as the management has taken up a specific contention to the effect that the petitioner herein was only a “temporary hand”. This Court notices that the afore issue was specifically considered in the impugned Award, finding that there was no permanent engagement, as proved by the petitioner herein, and therefore, considering the period of service, wages received, etc., the maximum amount that can be awarded to the petitioner by way of compensation is only to the extent of Rs.20,000/-, representing the past/present/future claims.

7. I find no reasons to disturb the findings contained in Ext.P5 order issued by the Labour Court.

8. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Pradeep S/o. Rajkumar Jain v. Manganese Ore (India) Limited and

Others [(2022) 3 SCC 683], I notice that the principles laid down therein may not have any application to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand for the reason that the petitioner herein, as already noticed, was only a temporary hand.

9. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner may not be entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in this writ petition. Resultantly, this writ petition would stand dismissed. Sd/-

HARISANKAR V. MENON

JUDGE anm

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4769/2023

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS

Exhibit-P-1 TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) 943/2020/LBR DATED 23.09.2020

Exhibit-P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM STATEMENT DATED 12.03.2021 Exhibit-P-3 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE MANAGEMENT

Exhibit-P-4 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE PETITIONER

Exhibit-P-5 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 10.06.2022