Kerala High Court
G4S Security Services (India) Pvt. Ltd vs Satheeshkumr.K on 14 December, 2009
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/15TH ASWINA, 1938
WA.No.501 of 2010 ( ) IN WP(C).10172/2009
--------------------------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 10172/2009 of HIGH COURT OF
KERALA DATED 14-12-2009
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
-----------------------------------
G4S SECURITY SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,
H.NO.34/259, "AMBAT", N.H.BYE PASS ROAD,, EDPPALLY, COCHIN-
682024, REPRESENTED BY THE VICE PRESIDENT(KERALA)
ANTONY.J.PANIKULAM.
BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
---------------------------------------------
1. SATHEESHKUMR.K., LEELA SADANAM,
POOTHAMKULANGARA, AVALOOKUNNU-PO,, ALAPPUZHA-688006.
2. DILEEP.T.T.,THANICKALPARA,
KALLARKUTTY.P.O.,KATHIPARA, IDUKKI-685562.
3. RENJITH T.R.,THAIPARAMBIL HOUSE,
KATTIKUNNU, CHEMBU.P.O., KOTTAYAM-686615.
4. BIJU ABRHAM, MANGATTORATHU HOUSE,
ARUNOOTTIMANGALAM.P.O., KOTTAYAM-686604.
5. THE LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM.
R BY SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. PAULABRAHAM VAKKANAL
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-10-2016, ALONG
WITH WA. 503/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
ANTONY DOMINIC & SHIRCY.V,JJ
-----------------------------------
W.A.Nos.501 & 503 of 2010
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of October, 2016
JUDGMENT
Antony Dominic,J The petitioner in W.P(C)Nos.10079 and 10172 of 2009 is the appellant. The writ petitions were filed questioning the legality of the orders passed by the Labour Court, Ernakulam in C.P.Nos.52 of 2003 and 6 of 2004 filed under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The writ petitions having been dismissed these appeals are filed.
2. The facts of the case are that the party respondents in these cases were the workmen under the appellant. They filed the claim petitions before the Labour Court invoking its power under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act ('the Act' for short) seeking recovery of the difference between the minimum wages payable to them under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and W.A.Nos.501 & 503 of 2010 2 the actual wages paid and the difference in the subsistence allowance payable to them in terms of the provisions contained in the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowances Act and the actual amount paid. Overruling the objections raised, the Labour Court upheld the claim of the workmen. It was challenging these orders, the appellant employer filed the writ petitions which came to be dismissed by a common judgment. It is in this background these appeals are filed.
3. We heard the counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents and the learned Government Pleader.
4. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that since the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act and the Minimum Wages Act provide for machinery for the recovery of the amounts due thereunder, claim petitions under Section 33 C(2) of the Act were not maintainable. The appellant further W.A.Nos.501 & 503 of 2010 3 contended that since they had disputed the entitlement and the quantum of the amount claimed by the workmen, the applications under Section 33 C(2) of the Act should have been dismissed by the Labour Court relegating the workmen to pursue their remedies under the respective enactments or under Section 10 of the Act itself.
5. Having heard the submissions made at the bar, we confess our inability to accept the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. According to us, both these contentions are answered by a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in Pappu vs. Raja Tiles & Match Works (1988 (1) KLT 476). That was a case where in a petition under Section 33C(2) of the Act, differential amounts of bonus claimed by the workmen as per the Payment of Bonus Act, were sought to be recovered from the employer. One of the contentions raised was that having regard to the machinery provided under the Payment of Bonus Act, the application was not W.A.Nos.501 & 503 of 2010 4 maintainable. The second contention raised was that since the quantum of bonus was also in dispute, the application could not have been entertained. Rejecting both these contentions, the Division Bench held that the application under Section 33C(2) of the Act is maintainable and that it was within the power of the Labour Court to enquire into the dispute regarding the quantum raised by the employer. According to the Division Bench, once entitlement for the benefit is found in favour of the workmen, further enquiry to determine the amount due was permissible in a proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the Act.
6. In so far as these cases are concerned, the very claim of the workmen was for differential amount of subsistence allowance and minimum wages payable under the respective enactments. In other words, the liability of the employer for payment of subsistence allowance and payment of minimum wages was not in dispute and what W.A.Nos.501 & 503 of 2010 5 was in dispute was virtually the quantum. In the light of the Division Bench judgment, an adjudication into that aspect is permissible within the scope of an enquiry in a proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the Act.
We therefore, do not find any illegality in the judgment of the learned Single Judge upholding the orders passed by the Labour Court. The appeals fail and are dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE SHIRCY.V JUDGE smm