LAWS(KER)-2022-7-83

MUTHOOT M. GEORGE BANKERS Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

Decided On July 22, 2022
Muthoot M. George Bankers Appellant
V/S
PRESIDING OFFICER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is aggrieved by the dismissal of his writ petition that was filed challenging Ext.P7 order passed by the Labour Court, Kollam under Sec. 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the 'Act').

(2.) The short facts leading to this writ appeal are as under:-

(3.) The main contentions raised before the learned single Judge was that the petitioner's establishment was closed with effect from 10/2/2004, and therefore the finding of the Labour Court to pay back-wages and wages to the second respondent from 10/6/1993 is not sustainable in law. The learned single Judge repelled the said contention on the ground that no such argument was made before the award was passed by the Labour Court nor before this Court in the writ petitions challenging Ext.P1 award or in the writ appeals and therefore such a contention could not be raised in a proceedings under Sec. 33C(2) of the Act. The second contention raised with regard to the calculation of the benefits to the petitioner was also not accepted in full but, a slight modification was made finding that the award was published under Sec. 17 of the Act only on 12/4/2006, and resultanty the award became enforceable on 12/5/2006 in terms of Sec. 17A of the Act and therefore the second respondent is entitled to full wages as the consequence of the reinstatement only from 12/5/2006 and not from 21/12/2005, thereby a causing a reduction of Rs.6832.00from the wages paid. A further contention was also raised by the appellant that the second respondent was not a Clerk but only an Office Assistant. This also was rejected on the short ground that no such contention was raised before the Labour Court while passing the order and that as a matter of fact, there is a specific finding in the award that the worker involved in the dispute was employed as a Clerk and the said fact was not disputed by the petitioner before the Labour Court. Thus, Ext.P7 order was confirmed with the slight modification as indicated above.