COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD Vs. SATHY RAJENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ appeals are filed under Sec. 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, by the petitioner-Cochin Devaswom Board (the 'Board ' in short) in W.P.(C) No.38124 of 2022 and 38137 of 2022 respectively. The writ petitions were filed by the appellantBoard under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the respective awards dtd. 28/7/2021 passed by the Labour Court, Ernakulam, in Industrial Disputes Nos.7 and 8 of 2017, directing the appellant Board to reinstate the workers in the respective Industrial Disputes with full back wages, continuity in service and all other attendant benefits. In the writ petitions, the respective 1st respondent workmen filed interlocutory applications under Sec. 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 'the Act ' in short), for payment of full wages last drawn by them pending the writ petitions. As per the impugned orders dtd. 31/7/2023 passed in the writ petitions, the learned Single Judge allowed the Interlocutory Applications and directed the appellant to pay the workmen full wages last drawn by them, at the rate of Rs.3,500.00 and Rs.5,000.00 respectively, per month from 24/11/2022 onwards until further orders. Being aggrieved, the appellant Board filed the above writ appeals.

(2.) The 1st respondent workmen in these writ appeals claimed before the Labour Court that they are the employees of Thirumaraikulam Sree Mahadevakshethram at Chethikode. The appellant Board contended before the Labour Court that the temple in question is a controlled institution and the appellant has no right to interfere in the day-to-day administration of the temple. The entrustment of the temple to the appellant by the trust which at present manages the temple is under challenge in W.P.(C) No.30161 of 2016 pending before this Court and hence the appellant has no right to interfere in the administration of the temple and there is no employer and employee relationship between the appellant Board and the 1st respondent workmen. However, as per Ext.P8 award passed in the respective Industrial Disputes, the Labour Court directed the appellant to reinstate the 1st respondent in the writ appeals with full back wages and all other attendant benefits. Challenging these awards, the appellant preferred W.P.(C)Nos.38124 of 2022 and 38137 of 2022 respectively, wherein the impugned interlocutory orders were passed by the learned Single Judge, without noting this crucial aspect.

(3.) Heard the learned standing counsel for the appellantBoard and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent workmen in the writ appeals.