SECRETARY, KERALA KHADI & VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Vs. SECRETARY, CANNANORE DISTRICT, SHOP ESTABLISHMENT, UNION (INTUC) AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Secretary of the Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board, Vanchiyoor, Thiruvananthapuram, the management in an industrial dispute, that was referred to the Labour Court, Kannur, by the State Government, is the petitioner in the writ petition, impugning Ext.P3 award passed by the said Labour Court. The facts in the writ petition would indicate that three employees, namely, Sri. P.V.Sunil Kumar, Smt. K.Jayasree and Smt. C. Vasantha, who were engaged as Sales Assistants, with effect from 15.1.1996/17.1.1996 were allegedly denied employment by the petitioner with effect from 1.3.1997 and thereafter again with effect from 1.10.1997. The Union representing the workers, which is arrayed as the respondent in this writ petition, preferred a complaint before the District Labour Officer, Kannur. Pursuant to a failed conciliation attempt and the submission of a failure report before the Government, the Government referred the dispute for adjudication before the Labour Court, Kannur. As the Union did not file a separate claim statement, the complaint dated 2.10.1997 filed by the Union before the District Labour Officer, Kannur, was treated as the claim statement of the Union. The petitioner management filed a written statement contending inter alia that the appointment of the aforesaid three workers was on daily wage basis, and purely provisional and contractual. It is stated that the services of the said workers were discontinued with effect from 28.2.1997, although, they were subsequently re-engaged for short spells between 8.3.1997 to 24.3.1997, and thereafter from 6.9.1997 to 30.9.1997, on daily wage basis. It was contended that inasmuch as the workers were daily wage employees, the action of the petitioner management in discontinuing their services could not be treated as denial of employment as alleged in the complaint. The respondent Union filed a rejoinder refuting the averments in the written statement, and the Labour Court had to consider the issue of whether the workers were entitled for reinstatement and any other reliefs to which they were entitled. On the issue of entitlement of the workers for reinstatement, the Labour Court, on the basis of the evidence before it, found that the fact of engagement on provisional and contractual basis with effect from 15.1.1996/17.1.1996 had been admitted by the petitioner management in the written statement. It was also found that the fact that the services were discontinued from 1.3.1997, save, for the short periods mentioned thereafter, was also not denied in the written statement. Based on the finding that the workers had put in continuous service from 15.1.1996 till 1.3.1997, the Labour Court found that the denial of employment for workers who had completed 420 days of continuous service amounted to a retrenchment for the purposes of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was found that inasmuch as the procedure contemplated under Section 25F had not been followed by the petitioner management, the three workers would be entitled to the retrenchment compensation consequent to their illegal retrenchment. Thereafter, the Labour Court went into the aspect of the entitlement of the workers to continuity in service, and found that the workers were entitled to be reinstated in service with full back wages and continuity in service. In the writ petition, Ext.P3 award is impugned by the petitioner management, inter alia, on the contention that, inasmuch as it was the admitted case that the workers had been employed on daily wages, they could not aspire for a continuity in service at par with the regular employees of the petitioner Board, and, therefore, the award, to the extent it finds in favour of the workers with regard to continuity of employment, on regular basis, is illegal. The finding of the Labour Court in Ext.P3 award with regard to the entitlement of the workers for the relief of reinstatement and consequential back wages is also impugned in the writ petition.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent, refuting the averments in the writ petition. When the writ petition came up for admission, this Court, by an interim order dated 4.11.2005, stayed the operation of the award pending disposal of the writ petition, and the said stay order continues to be in force even today. In a petition filed on behalf of the workers, seeking wages under Section 17B, this Court, by an interim order dated 22.2.2006, directed the petitioner to pay the three workmen wages under Section 17B @ Rs. 1050/- per month from the date of coming into force of Ext.P3 award, and the said payment was directed to be continued till the disposal of the writ petition. By another order dated 25.3.2010, this Court, taking note of the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner had discontinued payment of wages under Section 17B from May, 2009 onwards, directed the petitioner to continue to pay the said amounts to the workers for the period from May, 2009 onwards, if the workers complied with the condition of filing affidavits affirming that they were still unemployed.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned counsel for the respondent Union.