LAWS(KER)-2013-1-194

SANTHA CHANDRASEKHARAN, KOTTIYATTIL Vs. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY

Decided On January 14, 2013
Santha Chandrasekharan, Kottiyattil Appellant
V/S
DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was the opposite party in Claim Petition No.14 of 1995 before the Labour Court, Ernakulam. The Claim Petition was filed by respondents 2 to 5 herein claiming arrears of wages for the period from September 1991 to February 1995. By Ext.P5 order dated, 15.1.2003, the Labour Court found that respondents 2 to 5 are entitled to arrears of wages amounting to Rs.29,725.00 each from the petitioner and the petitioner was directed to pay the said amount within two months from the date of the order. The petitioner did not comply with the direction in Ext.P5 order. Subsequently, the petitioner was served with Ext.P6 revenue recovery notice for recovery of the said amount with interest. It is challenging Exts.P5 and P6, the petitioner has filed this writ petition on 18.11.2005.

(2.) THE petitioner raises two contentions. The first is that in the absence of any previous adjudication of the right of respondents 2 to 5 for wages for the period in question, the Labour Court could not have adjudicated the Claim Petition under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the proceedings under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is in the nature of execution and unless the rights for claiming that amount has been previously adjudicated, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the right of the parties, which has to be done in an industrial dispute. The second contention is that respondents 2 to 5 are not entitled to the amount directed to be paid, since they did not work for the period in question.

(3.) IN answer to the contention regarding the delay, the petitioner would contend that the petitioner was totally unaware of the proceedings in the Claim Petition, since the same was being conducted by her husband, who died in 2001. She knew about the proceedings only when she received Ext.P6 revenue recovery notice, is the contention raised.