LATHA E C Vs. BAHINI U

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Labour Court, Kozhikode, in proceedings under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by exhibit P-l order, dated 18/07/1997 (in C.P. No. 34 of 1993), had held that the petitioner in the claim petition who is the first respondent herein is entitled to recover from her employer Rs. 58,750 towards the arrears of salary for the period from 1/12/1989, to 30/11/1993, and also interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from 31/10/1993, till the date of realisation.

(2.) The respondents before the Labour Court, namely, the President of Kolathara Mahila Samajam and Secretary, are respectively the first and second petitioners in the original petition. Sri Salil Naryanan, appearing for the petitioners, submits that the Labour Court has committed an error while passing a direction as has been made. According to him, the application under Section 33- C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act would not have been. maintainable at all. The power was only a computation of admitted dues or payment arising out of a settlement made and the amount that had been shown as payable to her was on the above basis for the entire period of her employment.

(3.) According to the petitionersmanagement, the primary aspect which was to be examined was as to whether there were stipulations or agreements between the parties as to the amount of salary that was payable to the instructor, thus suggesting that it was not an employment of a workman in the real sense of the term. In this region, the Labour Court had committed a mistake. The Labour Court had referred to and relied on exhibit P-3, which was but a letter from the Central Social Welfare Board sanctioning grant for running the vocational course on 20/09/1991. The grant was subject to certain conditions and, inter alia, it also referred to the method of utilisation of the grant. One of the stipulations was that the salary payable to the full time instructor was Rs. 1,250 per mensem and part time instructor at the rate of Rs. 750 per mensem. The petitioners submit that the Court took this as a condition of service as applicable to the employee, which entitled her to claim salary at the rate of Rs. 1,250 per mensem. Exhibit P-3 was a communication long after the engagement of the worker and could not by itself confer a right on her to get a salary at a rate referred to therein. The maximum that could be gatherable from exhibit P-3 was that it was a condition for payment of grant. The grant by the State Social Welfare Advisory Board was received only for one year and the grant from the Central Social Welfare Board also was confined to one year. The petitioners also submit that from the amount earmarked as teachers' salary, proportional payment had been offered to the employee, but this had been refused to be accepted, and they were always willing to make this payment. The error, .according to them, committed by the Labour Court was that this irrelevant document has been construed as governing the relationship between the worker and the Samajam.