KUNJUMOL Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners have filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P4 Common Order passed by the Labour Court, Kollam, dismissing Claim Petitions Nos.32/1995 and 29/2000 under Sec. 33- C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'ID Act').

(2.) The Petitioners are the legal heirs of Sri. P.M. Varghese who was the Workman of the Respondent No.2/Estate of Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. He was dismissed from service w.e.f. 30/7/1988 by the Respondent No.2. The Workman raised I.D. No. 31/1989 and the same was adjudicated by the Industrial Tribunal, Kollam, and the Industrial Tribunal, Kollam, passed Ext.P1 Award dtd. 28/4/1990 directing the Respondent No.2/Management to reinstate the Workman as tapper in the service of the Respondent No.2/Management without back wages and other benefits but with continuity of service. Ext.P1 Award was published on 8/5/1990. The Workman filed C.P. Nos.32/1995 and 29/2000 claiming wages, bonus, leave wages and compensation for losses and hardship and interest totalling Rs.1,25,416.00 and Rs.1,60,802.00 respectively. C.P.No.32/1995 was for the period from 3/6/1992 to 31/5/1995 and C.P.No.29/2000 was for the period from 1/1/1996 to 31/3/2000. The said Claim Petitions were filed alleging that the Respondent No.2 refused to reinstate the Workman in compliance with Ext.P1 Award. The said Claim Petitions were dismissed by the Labour Court, Kollam, as per Ext.P2 Common Order dtd. 22/11/2004. This Court set aside Ext.P2 Common Order as per Ext.P3 judgment in W.P.(C) No.8401/2005 filed by the Workman, holding that the Labour Court did not consider the points raised by the Workman. During the pendency of W.P.(C) No.8401/2005, the Workman died on 4/10/2007 and the Petitioners were impleaded as the additional Petitioners in W.P.(C) No.8401/2005. The Petitioners were also impleaded in the aforesaid two Claim Petitions as Addl.Petitioners. The Labour Court by Ext.P4 Common Order dismissed both the Claim Petitions holding that there is no evidence to prove the contention of the Workman that, immediately after his release from jail in May 1991, he approached Respondent No.2 with a request to take him back in service in compliance with the direction in Ext.P1 Award and that the Workman offered his readiness to join the service of the Management through his Union after about three years when only a few months remained for his superannuation. Thereupon, the Petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition challenging the Ext.P4 Common Order.

(3.) I heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, Sri.P.S.Gireesh, and the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2/Management, Sri. Jai Mohan. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners contended that Ext.P1 Award was published on 8/5/1990. Admittedly, the Workman was in jail till May 1991. The Workman submitted a Request for reinstatement in compliance with the direction in Ext.P1 Award immediately after his release from jail in May 1991. Even assuming that the Workman had not sent any request to the Management, the Management is under an obligation to issue Communication to the Workman offering the reinstatement. Even though the Management sent a Letter dtd. 10/1/1991, admittedly, the same was returned unserved on the Workman. At any rate, since the Workman was illegally kept out of service by the Management refusing to comply with the direction in Ext.P1 Award, the Workman is entitled to get the wages and other benefits eligible to the Workman for the period during which the Workman was kept out of service. Such wages and other benefits would come within the meaning of the benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money entitled to the Workman under Sec. 33-C(2) of the ID Act. Learned Counsel relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Bank of India Ltd. v. P.S. Rajagopalan [AIR 1964 SC 743] to substantiate the point that the Labour Court has jurisdiction to determine whether the Workman has the right to receive any benefit on the basis of an Award or Settlement under Sec. 33-C(2) of the ID Act. Admittedly, the Union sent a Letter dtd. 10/2/1994 to the Management to reinstate the Workman, and hence, at any rate, the Management is liable to pay the wages and other benefits starting from the said day. The learned Counsel relied on the Division Bench decision of this Court in Annamma Thomas v. T. Joseph [1984 KLT 545] in which it is held that the relief of future wages from the date on which the Workman submitted the claim for reinstatement cannot be denied. The learned Counsel relied on the decision of this Court in Co-operative Sugars Ltd. v. Noorudeen [2002 (2) KLT SN 6 (Case No.6)] to substantiate the point that if the Management denies or delays the reinstatement in spite of request either from the Union or from the Workman, then the Workman is entitled for full wages and other benefits from that stage and that once there is a demand for reinstatement and there is an offer for reinstatement in case a Workman does not turn up for duty for no justifiable reason, he cannot claim any wages, let alone the differential wages. Since the Workman had been in jail until May 1991, the Workman had a justifiable reason for not turning up for duty. The learned Counsel concluded his arguments by praying to set aside Ext.P4 Order and to allow both the Claim Petitions filed by the Workman.