SECRETARY Vs. K P SHYAMALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The award of the Labour Court, Kannur in I.D.No.3/1993 is under challenge at the hands of the management of a Co-operative Society. There was a direction for reinstatement of the worker concerned with full back wages. Award has partly been implemented by reinstating the worker. There is no objection about the direction for granting continuity of service benefits arising there from. The objection is about the direction for payment of full back wages, for the period from 28.12.1987, till September, 1995. The brief facts are as given below. Worker, Smt.K.P.Syamala was engaged as a Beedi roller in the petitioner-Co-operative Society from 1984. According to her, she was constrained to take leave on 28.12.1987 due to illness of her child who had been hospitalized. She was absent admittedly without leave. The society had issued a notice to her by registered post, but she did not receive it as she was not available in station. It is the case of the worker that she had again approached the employer after about a week and requested for three months leave, and hoping that the application would be favourably considered, had abstained from work. When she returned she had been informed that her name had been removed from the rolls of the society. A dispute was raised in due course and order is seen to have been passed by the Government, on 11.11.1992, referring the dispute of denial of employment for adjudication.

(2.) It is found that by the impugned award the Labour Court had granted all possible reliefs to her. During the pendency of the Original Petition, she had been reinstated so as to avoid payment of 17 B wages and as at present she is working. I do not think that there are sufficient reasons to interfere with the award, in so far as it directs reinstatement. It was a case where the employer had not followed the prescribed procedure for a termination and violation of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act obviously is there, rendering the retrenchment illegal. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be on strong grounds when he submits that in the matter of awarding back wages, the Labour Court had failed to apply its mind to all the relevant aspects. According to him, the Society did not deserve to be imposed with a burden of back wages.

(3.) Though a contention had been raised by the petitioner that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction since parties are to be governed by the Co-operative Societies Act, it was not seriously prosecuted. The first respondent is a workman in an industry and it was within the jurisdiction of the Government to notice the industrial dispute and make a reference.