Kerala High Court
Paramekkavu Devaswom vs K.V.Sankarankutty
Author: K. Vinod Chandran
Bench: K.Vinod Chandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/6TH ASHADHA, 1938
WP(C).No. 22173 of 2008 (M)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
PARAMEKKAVU DEVASWOM,
THRISSUR-68001, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT, SRI.K.MANOHANAN,
S/O.KUNNAMPURATH, DAKSHAYANI AMMA, USHUS,,
KIZHAKKAMPATTUKARA, TRICHUR-5.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.ANAND (A.201)
SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. K.V.SANKARANKUTTY, WATCHMAN,
PARAMEKKAVU DEVASWOM, THRISSUR, S/O.GOVINDAN NAIR,,
KALIPARAMBIL VALIYAVEETTIL, PO., THEKKUMKARA, THRISSUR.
2. THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, THRISSUR
R,R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH
R2 BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 27-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 22173 of 2008 (M)
APPENDEIX
PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:
EXT.P1 COPY OF APPLICATION FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER KERALA
PAYMENT OF SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE ACT
EXT.P2 COPY OF OBJECTION DATED 13.11.07 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS
EXT.P3 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.SAC/11/06 DATED 18.4.08 OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
EXT.P4 COPY OF THE ENVELOP UNCLAIMED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:
EXT.R1(A) COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 14.11.2007 OF THE PETITIONER.
EXT.R1(B) COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
// TRUE COPY //
P.A TO JUDGE
SB
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
=====================
W.P.(C) No.22173 of 2008 - M
======================
Dated this the 27th day of June, 2016
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is aggrieved with Ext.P3 order passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Thrissur under the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1972 (for brevity the Act of 1972). The short contention raised by the petitioner is that the petitioner being a temple, cannot be called an industry or an establishment as defined under the Act of 1972 and the respondent would also not come within the definition of an employee.
2. A reading of the definition of employee and establishment under the Act of 1972 would not support the contention of the petitioner. 'Establishments' takes in any place, wherein inter alia a service carried is on and exempts only 2 W.P.(C) No.22173 of 2008 - M Officers or departments of Government or of railway, major port, mine or oil . An employee is defined as " a person employed in or in connection with the work of any establishment to do any work including skilled, semi skilled or unskilled work for hire or reward and what is excluded is work of mainly managerial or administrative capacity or one who is an out worker meaning given piece work to carry out work in a place not under the control and management of the employer". The petitioner is a Devaswom, who is formed inorder to carry out the affairs of the temple and manage the assets of the temple. The 1st respondent is a watchman engaged by the petitioner. In such circumstance, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not an establishment or the 1st respondent is not an employer as covered under the Act of 1972.
3. Paramekkavu Devaswom v. M. Ramachandran [2004 (3) KLT 553], in which the petitioner Devaswom, itself was a party covers the issue raised herein. Therein a learned 3 W.P.(C) No.22173 of 2008 - M Single Judge considered the definition under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which is more restricted than that of the Act of 1972 and found that the Devaswom would be an industrial establishment, coming under the Act and the watchman an employee.
4. In such circumstance, the petitioner shall pay the amounts as directed in Ext.P3, within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment, failing which, the amounts would carry interest @6% p.a. The writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and the same would stand dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE SB/28/06/2016 // true copy // P.A to Judge.