EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Vs. JOHNSON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Executive Engineer and the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD Building Division Office, Thiruvalla have filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P2 order passed by the Labour Court, Kollam in Ext.P1 claim petition filed by the respondent workman under Sec. 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'ID Act'). In Ext.P1 claim petition, it was contended by the respondent/claimant as follows:-

(2.) The claim petition was taken to file and notice was issued to the opposite parties, the writ petitioners herein. However, the opposite parties did not appear and they were set ex parte. The claimant filed chief affidavit in lieu of chief examination. Exts.P1 to P6 documents were marked on the side of the claimant. Ext.P1 produced along with the chief affidavit is a letter dtd. 9/6/2011 sent to the claimant from the office of the Deputy Labour Officer, Pathanamthitta asking him whether the labour dispute raised by him still remained unsolved. Ext.P2 is the letter dtd. 21/7/2011 sent to the claimant from the District Labour Office, Pathanamthitta advising him to file claim petition before the Labour Court, Kollam for redressing his grievance. Exts.P3 and P4 are copies of lawyer notice sent to the opposite parties at the instance of the claimant and Exts.P5 and P6 are the acknowledgment cards for receipt of the above legal notices by the opposite parties. The Labour Court, on the basis of the evidence on record, found that the claim of the workman is true and bona fide. Since the opposite parties remained ex parte, the Labour Court drew an adverse inference that they are conceding to the claim of the workman. The Labour Court allowed the claim by directing the opposite parties to pay the claimant an amount of Rs.16,680.00- with interest thereon @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Challenging Ext.P2 order, this writ petition is filed.

(3.) In the writ petition, it is contended that the respondent workman has worked only for 19 days during the period from 15/8/2008 to 31/12/2008 and has not worked for 120 days during the said period as claimed in Ext.P1. In support of the said contention, the petitioners have produced Ext.P3 statement of details of engaging the respondent as CLR worker in PWD Rest House, Thiruvalla during the above period, maintained in the office of the 2nd petitioner. It is contended that the respondent has not produced any documents to prove that he had worked during the period in question and is entitled to wages for the said period. It is also contended that the Labour Court can adjudicate only undisputed amount of arrears, salaries etc. under Sec. 33-C(2) of the ID Act. It is further contended that non appearance of the petitioners would not relieve the claimant from the initial burden of establishing the prima facie case for the exercise of jurisdiction under Sec. 33-C(2) of the ID Act. It is also contended that at the time of filing the claim petition, the employer-employee relationship had ceased and the claim petition ought not have been entertained by the Labour Court.