Kerala High Court
The Managing Director vs Jose.L.L on 28 January, 2025
1
W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 8TH MAGHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 6153 OF 2019
PETITIONERS:
1 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION FOR FISHERIES
DEVELOPMENT (MATSYAFED), KAMALESWARAM, MANACADU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695009.
2 THE MANAGER, MATSYAFED NET FACTORY,
DR.SALIM ALI ROAD, COCHIN-682 018.
BY ADV T.P.PRADEEP
RESPONDENTS:
1 JOB YESUDAS.V.M., VALLANATTU HOUSE,
KUMBALANGHI P.O., KOCHI-682 007.
2 THE PRESIDING OFFICER,
LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM-682 018.
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR
SMT.A.K.PREETHA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.01.2025,
ALONG WITH WP(C).6022/2019, 6149/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT
ON 28.01.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 8TH MAGHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 6022 OF 2019
PETITIONERS:
1 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION FOR FISHERIES
DEVELOPMENT (MATSYAFED), KAMALESWARAM, MANACADU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695009.
2 THE MANAGER, MATSYAFED NET FACTORY,
DR.SALIM ALI ROAD, COCHIN-682018.
BY ADV T.P.PRADEEP
RESPONDENTS:
1 JOSEPH PAYAS T.G., THATTASSERY HOUSE,
NETTOOR, COCHIN-682040.
2 THE PRESIDING OFFICER,
LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM-682018.
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR
SMT.A.K.PREETHA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.01.2025,
ALONG WITH WP(C).6153/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
28.01.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 8TH MAGHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 6149 OF 2019
PETITIONERS:
1 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE
FEDERATION FOR FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT(MATSYAFED)
KAMALESWARAM, MANACADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 009.
2 THE MANAGER, MATSYAFED NET FACTORY,
DR.SALIM ALI ROAD, COCHIN - 682 018.
BY ADV T.P.PRADEEP
RESPONDENTS:
1 BABURAJ.K.P., KUTHOLIPARAMBIL, VANIYAKAD,
MANNAM P.O., NORTH PARUR-683 520.
2 THE PRESIDING OFFICER,
LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM-682 018.
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR
SMT.A.K.PREETHA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.01.2025,
ALONG WITH WP(C).6153/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
28.01.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
4
W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 8TH MAGHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 6137 OF 2019
PETITIONERS:
1 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE
FEDERATION FOR FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT(MATSYAFED),
KAMALESWARAM, MANACADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 009.
2 THE MANAGER, MATSYAFED NET FACTORY,
DR.SALIM ALI ROAD, COCHIN - 682 018.
BY ADV T.P.PRADEEP
RESPONDENTS:
1 SHIBU P.C., PEEDIAKKAPARAMBIL,
EDAKOCHI P.O., COCHIN - 682 006.
2 THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM - 682 018.
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR
SMT.A.K.PREETHA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.01.2025,
ALONG WITH WP(C).6153/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
28.01.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
5
W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 8TH MAGHA, 1946
WP(C) NO.6104 OF 2019
PETITIONERS:
1 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION FOR FISHERIES
DEVELOPMENT (MATSYAFED), KAMALESWARAM, MANACAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695009.
2 THE MANAGER, MATSYAFED NET FACTORY,
DR.SALIM ALI ROAD, COCHIN-682018.
BY ADV T.P.PRADEEP
RESPONDENTS:
1 ASHRAF P.M., POTTAPARAMBU,
VENNALA P.O., KOCHI-682025.
2 THE PRESIDING OFFICER,
LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM-682018.
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR
SMT.A.K.PREETHA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.01.2025,
ALONG WITH WP(C).6153/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
28.01.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
6
W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 8TH MAGHA, 1946
WP(C) NO.6084 OF 2019
PETITIONERS:
1 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION FOR FISHERIES
DEVELOPMENT(MATSYAFED), KAMALESWARAM, MANACADU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 009.
2 THE MANAGER, MATSYAFED NET FACTORY,
DR. ALI ROAD, COCHIN-682 018.
BY ADV.T.P.PRADEEP
RESPONDENTS:
1 JOSE.L.L., S.M. SADANAM, ARUVIKKARA P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 564.
2 THE PRESIDING OFFICER,
LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM-682 018.
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR
SMT.A.K.PREETHA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.01.2025,
ALONG WITH WP(C).6153/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
28.01.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
7
W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 8TH MAGHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 11174 OF 2020
PETITIONER:
K.P.BABURAJ, AGED 52 YEARS,
S/O. PARAMESWARAN, KUTHOLIPARAMBIL,
VANIYAKAD, MANNANAM P.O., NORTH PARUR,
ERNAKULAM-683520.
BY ADVS.
C.ANIL KUMAR
SMT.A.K.PREETHA
RESPONDENTS:
1 MATSYAFED, KALALESWARAM, MANACAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695009, REPRESENTED
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2 MANAGER, MATSYAFED NET FACTORY,
DR.SALIM ALI ROAD, KOCHI -682018.
3 LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682018.
BY ADV SRI.T.P.PRADEEP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.01.2025,
ALONG WITH WP(C).6153/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
28.01.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
8
W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 8TH MAGHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 11242 OF 2020
PETITIONER:
SHIBU P.C., AGED 52 YEARS,
S/O.CHIDAMBARAM, PEEDIKAKKAPARAMBIL,
EDKOCHI, KOCHI-682 006.
BY ADVS.
C.ANIL KUMAR
SMT.A.K.PREETHA
RESPONDENTS:
1 MATSYAFED, KALALESWARAM, MANACAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 009, REPRESENTED BY
ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2 MANAGER, MATSYAFD NET FACTORY,
DR.SALIM ALI ROAD, KOCHI-682 018.
3 LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 018.
BY ADV.SRI.T.P.PRADEEP, SC, MATSYAFED
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.01.2025,
ALONG WITH WP(C).6153/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
28.01.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
9
W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 8TH MAGHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 11808 OF 2020
PETITIONER:
P.M.ASHRAF, AGED 54 YEARS,
S/O.MOHAMMED, POTTAPARAMBU HOUSE,
VENNALA.P.O., KOCHI-682028.
BY ADV SMT.A.K.PREETHA
RESPONDENTS:
1 MATSYAFED, KALALESWARAM, MANACAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695009, REPRESENTED
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2 MANAGER, MATSYAFED NET FACTORY,
DR.SALIM ALI ROAD, KOCHI-682018.
3 LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682018.
BY ADV SRI.T.P.PRADEEP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.01.2025,
ALONG WITH WP(C).6153/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
28.01.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
10
W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 8TH MAGHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 11813 OF 2020
PETITIONER:
JOSEPH PAYAS T.G., AGED 53 YEARS,
S/O.JOHN JOSEPH, THATTASSERY HOUSE,
NETTOOR P.O., KOCHI-682040.
BY ADVS.
C.ANIL KUMAR
SMT.A.K.PREETHA
RESPONDENTS:
1 MATSYAFED, KALALESWARAM, MANACAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695009,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2 MANAGER, MATSYAFED NET FACTORY,
DR.SALIM ALI ROAD, KOCHI-682018.
3 LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682018.
BY ADV. SRI.T.P.PRADEEP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.01.2025,
ALONG WITH WP(C).6153/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
28.01.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
11
W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 8TH MAGHA, 1946
WP(C) NO.11839 OF 2020
PETITIONER:
JOSE L.L., AGED 48 YEARS,
S/O.K.P. LEVI, RESIDING AT S.M. SADANAM,
MYALMOODU, ARUVIKKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 564.
BY ADV A.K.PREETHA
RESPONDENTS:
1 MATSYAFED, KALALESWARAM, MANACAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 009, REPRESENTED
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2 MANAGER, MATSYAFED NET FACTORY,
DR.SALIM ALI ROAD, KOCHI-682 018.
3 LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 018.
BY ADV SRI.T.P.PRADEEP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.01.2025,
ALONG WITH WP(C).6153/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
28.01.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
12
W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 8TH MAGHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 18459 OF 2020
PETITIONER:
JOB YESUDAS, AGED 54 YEARS,
S/O.LATE V.L.MATHEW, VALLANATT HOUSE,
KUMBALANGHI P.O, KOCHI-682007.
BY ADVS.
A.K.PREETHA
SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 MATSYAFED, MANACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695009,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2 MANAGER, MATSYAFED NET FACTORY,
DR.SALIM ALI ROAD, KOCHI-682018.
3 LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682018.
BY ADV SRI.T.P.PRADEEP, SC, MATSYAFED
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.01.2025,
ALONG WITH WP(C).6153/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
28.01.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
13
W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217
JUDGMENT
[WP(C) Nos.6153/2019, 6022/2019, 6149/2019, 6137/2019, 6104/2019, 6084/2019, 11174/2020, 11242/2020, 11808/2020, 11813/2020, 11839/2020 and 18459/2020] These writ petitions pertain to an industrial dispute raised by the workers employed with the Matsyafed in Labour Court, Ernakulam. W.P(C) Nos.6022, 6084, 6104, 6137, 6149 and 6153 of 2019 are filed by the Management against the workmen challenging the award issued by the Labour Court and W.P(C) Nos.11174, 11242, 11808, 11813, 11839 and 18459 of 2020 are filed by the workmen against the findings in the very same award as regards their claim for back wages.
2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of these writ petitions as culled out from W.P(C) No.6022 of 2019 are as follows:
The 1st petitioner is the Managing Director of the Matsyafed and the 2nd petitioner is the Manager of the Net Factory run by the Matsyafed, an Apex Society under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. The 1st respondent was engaged as an 14 W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217 "operator" in the Net Factory of the petitioner for a period of 179 days purely on contract basis, as seen from Ext.P2 agreement entered into between the Management and the 1st respondent workman. Pursuant to certain complaints raised by the workman, the District Labour Officer issued Ext.P3 dated 27.04.2009 to the 1st petitioner herein, directing the workmen to be extended same wages as that of Operator Grade-II. This was followed with Ext.P4, minutes of the meeting between the Management and certain workmen, agreeing to implement the directives to be issued by the Management. On the basis of the afore, Ext.P5 was issued by the Managing Director dated 24.02.2010 extending the wages of Operator Grade-III to the workmen like 1st respondent herein and deciding to extend the scale of Operator Grade-II on completion of 10 years' service.
Acting on Ext.P5, the 2nd petitioner cancelled the agreements executed by the workmen like the 1st respondent herein and extended the wages under the Kerala Casual Temporary and Badli Workers (Wages) Act, 1989.
15W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217
3. However, the 1st petitioner by Ext.P7 sought to retrench the workmen who were appointed pursuant to Ext.P6, essentially on account of the rise in the cost of raw materials, which was allegedly affecting the functioning of the factory, which could be reduced only by reducing the administrative/production cost. The workmen, like the 1st respondent in this writ petition, filed a claim under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "I.D. Act"), before the Labour Court. The Management filed a written statement at Ext.P9.
4. The Labour Court framed the question as to whether retrenchment was justifiable or not. By Ext.P10, the Tribunal found the retrenchment without justification and hence, directed reinstatement of the workmen. The claim for back wages was disallowed, however, extending continuity of service to the workmen like the 1st respondent.
5. It is in the afore circumstances these writ petitions are filed by the Management and the Workmen as noticed 16 W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217 above.
6. I have heard Sri.T.P. Pradeep, the learned counsel for the Management and Sri.Anil Kumar, the learned counsel for the workmen.
7. Sri.Pradeep, the learned counsel for the Management, would contend that the findings in Ext.P10 award are without justification and arbitrary. He would contend that no notice is required under Section 25N of the I.D. Act, that the workmen have accepted the categorization as "badli workers", never challenging the orders issued in that regard and hence, the Labour Court went wrong in finding that retrenchment without notice was incorrect. In any event, he states that the Labour Court ought not to have ordered reinstatement. He relied on various judgments in support of the afore contentions.
8. Per contra, Sri.Anil Kumar, on behalf of the workmen, invited the attention of this Court to the requirement of workers as highlighted in the petition filed before the Labour Court, which was not disputed, as well as the regularization of various 17 W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217 persons after the retrenchment in question.
9. I have considered the rival submissions and the connected records.
10. The Labour Court in Ext.P10 has found that the retrenchment was without following the provisions of the statute. The provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the I.D. Act, were relied on from the side of Management to contend that the workmen cannot claim reinstatement. The afore provision reads as under;
"[(oo) "retrenchment" means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action but does not include-
...............
[(bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or]"
True, termination of services of the workmen as a result of non- renewal of the contract of employment or termination of the same does not amount to retrenchment. The Labour Court 18 W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217 referred to the proceedings of the District Labour Officer and the connected records and found the termination of the workmen as not on account of non-renewal of the contract. The afore findings rendered by the Labour Court, with reference to the documents produced, cannot be found as incorrect.
11. The Labour Court also referred to the provisions of Section 25G of the I.D. Act and found that certain juniors to the workmen before the Labour Court were being retained, which is nothing but "pick and choose" method and the same amounts to unfair labour practice. In the light of the afore, the next issue to be noticed is that the Labour Court found infringement of the provisions of Section 25H of the I.D. Act. This Court further notices that the reason stated for retrenchment was the alleged loss suffered by the company. The Management took a U-turn in the written statement and cited various other reasons like lack of discipline, etc., on the part of workmen. This itself shows that, as rightly found by the Labour Court, the management was driving the workmen to a tight spot. The Labour Court also 19 W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217 verified the financials of the petitioner company to find the same to be a profitable one. It also shows that the Management was taking a hostile attitude towards the workmen.
12. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and another v. S.G. Kotturappa and another [(2005) 3 SCC 409] to contend that the workmen concerned were badli workers and hence not enjoying the status of a civil post. However, I notice that in the case at hand, apart from the fact that the workmen were extended their wages under the Badli Act, no proper statutory provisions are referred to for the retrenchment. He also relied on Haryana State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. v. Mamni [(2006) 9 SCC 434] and State of Uttarakhand and another v. Raj Kumar [(2019) 14 SCC 353], Ranbir Singh v. Executive Engineer P.W.D [2021 (5) KLT online 1104] to contend that the reinstatement ought not to have been ordered. But in the case at hand, this Court notices that the petitioners have contended 20 W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217 that even after retrenchment, substantial number of fresh appointments have been effected. In such circumstances, the direction for reinstatement cannot be interfered with. He would also refer to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in HLL Life Care Ltd v. M/s. Sapthazeal Private Ltd. [2024 (3) KLT 488] in support of the contention that the Management has no duty to follow the directives of the District Labour Officer. However, in the case at hand, I notice that the proceedings of the District Labour Officer were not the sole reason for issuing Ext.P10 award. The Labour Court has categorically found the refusal to follow provisions of the statute while ordering retrenchment and other contributing factors. Hence, the afore decisions may not help the learned counsel for the petitioners.
12. On the whole, I am of the opinion that the findings rendered by the Labour Court challenged at the instance of the Management cannot be said to be incorrect or arbitrary. 21 W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217
13. The remaining question arising for consideration is with reference to the six writ petitions filed at the instance of the workmen. They contend that the Labour Court, having found that the retrenchment was illegal while ordering reinstatement, back wages ought to have been extended to the workmen. The learned counsel Sri.Anil Kumar relied on Surendra Kumar Verma and others v. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, New Delhi and Another [1980 (4) SCC 443] and M/s. Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. v. The Employees of M/s. Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. And others [1979 (2) SCC 80] in support of the afore contention. The Apex Court in Surendra Kumar Verma (supra) has found as under;
" 6. ..............Plain common sense dictates that the removal of an order terminating the services of workmen must ordinarily lead to the reinstatement of the services of the workmen. It is as if the order has never been and so it must ordinarily lead to back wages too. But there may be exceptional circumstances which make it impossible or wholly inequitable vis a vis the employer and workmen to direct reinstatement with full back wages. For instance, the industry might have closed down or might be in severe financial 22 W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217 doldrums; the workmen concerned might have secured better or other employment elsewhere and so on. In such situations, there is a vestige of discretion left in the Court to make appropriate consequential orders. The Court may deny the relief of reinstatement where reinstatement is impossible because the industry has closed own. The Court may deny the relief of award of full back wages where that would place an impossible burden on the employer. In such and other exceptional cases the Court may mould the relief but, ordinarily the relief to be awarded must be reinstatement with full back wages. That relief must be awarded where no special impediment in the way of awarding the relief is clearly shown. True, occasional hardship may be caused to an employer but we must remember that, more often than not, comparatively far greater hardship is certain to be caused to the workmen if the relief is denied than to the employer if the relief is granted."
To the same effect is the judgment in M/s.Hindustan Tin (supra).
14. In the case at hand, the Labour Court found the retrenchment to be quite arbitrary. The company was also found to be making a profit. The delay in disposal of the industrial dispute is also not attributable to the workmen. Therefore, in my opinion, the workmen would be entitled to back wages. 23 W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217 Resultantly, the afore writ petitions are disposed of as under:
i. W.P(C) Nos.6022, 6084, 6104, 6137, 6149 and 6153 of 2019 filed by the Management are dismissed. ii. W.P(C) Nos.11174, 11242, 11808, 11813, 11839 and 18459 of 2020 filed by the workmen are allowed. It is declared that the workmen/petitioners in these writ petitions would be entitled to back wages apart from reinstatement and continuity of service.
Sd/-
HARISANKAR V. MENON, JUDGE ln 24 W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6022/2019 PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.12.2004. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ONE OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND THE 2ND PETITIONER ON 29.12.2006.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 27.4.2009 OF THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES DATED 28.12.2009. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.02.2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01.03.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.02.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON AWARD DATED 07.11.2018 IN ID 42/2013.
25W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6149/2019 PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01/01/2005.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ONE OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND THE 2ND PETITIONER ON 28/08/2009. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 27/4/2009 OF THE DISTRICT LABORU OFFICER, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES DATED 28/12/2009.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24/02/2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01/03/2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26/02/2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON AWARD DATED 07/11/2018 IN ID 39/2013.26
W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6137/2019 PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12/07/2000. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ONE OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND THE 2ND PETITIONER ON 21/08/2009.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 27/4/2009 OF THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES DATED 28/12/2009. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24/02/2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01/03/2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26/02/2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON AWARD DATED 07/11/2018 IN ID 43/2013.27
W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6104/2019 PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01/10/04. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ONE OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND THE 2ND PETITIONER ON 28/08/2009.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 27/04/2009 OF THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES DATED 28/12/2009.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24/02/2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01/03/2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26/02/2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON AWARD DATED 07/11/2018 IN ID 38/2013.28
W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6084/2019 PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.07.2000. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ONE OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND THE 2ND PETITIONER ON 28.02.2007.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 27.04.2009 OF THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES DATED 28.12.2009. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.02.2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1.3.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.2.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON AWARD DATED 7.11.2018 IN ID 41/2013.
29W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11174/2020 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN ID NO.39/2013.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 IN ID NO.39/2013. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON AWARD DATED 07/11/2018 PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM IN ID NOS.38/2013 TO 43/2013. 30 W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11242/2020 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN I.D NO.43/2013.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY RESPONDENTS A AND 2 IN I.D NO.43/2013. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON AWARD DATED 07/11/2018 PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM IN I.D.NOS.38/2013 TO 43/2013. 31 W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11808/2020 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON AWARD DATED 07.11.2018 PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM IN I.D.NOS.38/2013 TO 43/2013. 32
W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11813/2020 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN I.D.NO.42/2013.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 IN I.D.NO.42/2013. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON AWARD DATED 07.11.2018 PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM IN I.D.NOS.38/2013 TO 43/2013. 33
W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11839/2020 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN I.D. NO.41/2013.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY RESPONDENT A AND 2 IN I.D. NO.41/2013. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON AWARD DATED 07/11/2018 PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM IN I.D. NOS.38/2013 TO 43/2013. 34 W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18459/2020 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN I.D.NO.40/2013. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN I.D.NO.40/2013. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON AWARD DATED 07/11/2018 PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM IN I.D.NO.NOS.38/2013 TO 43/2013. 35 W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6153/2019 PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ABOVE ORDER DATED 9.9.04.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ABOVE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE IST RESPONDENT AND THE 2ND PETITIONER 5.9.2007.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 27.4.2009 OF THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES DATED 28.12.2009.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.2.2010 ISSUED BY THE IST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1.3.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.2.2011 ISSUED BY THE IST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON AWARD DATED 7.11.2018 IN ID 40/2013.