Dr. E.K.Ramachandran vs Ammini K.D. Sweeper on 1 December, 2006

[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Kerala High Court

Dr. E.K.Ramachandran vs Ammini K.D. Sweeper on 1 December, 2006

Bench: Kurian Joseph

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP No. 13257 of 2003(C)


1. DR. E.K.RAMACHANDRAN, SUPERINTENDENT
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. AMMINI K.D. SWEEPER, M.E.S.THYVALAPPIL
                       ...       Respondent

2. REENA V.O., SWEEPER, M.E.S.THYVALAPPIL

3. KOMALAM K.R., NURSING ASSISTANT,

4. NASSEEMA P.R., NURSING ASSISTANT,

5. MARIAM P.P., NURSING ASSISTANT,

6. MARY VINCENT, NURSING ASSISTANT,

7. LAKSHMI P.R., NURSING ASSISTANT,

8. PHILOMINAA.M., NURSING ASSISTANT,

9. LILLY T.J., NURSING ASSISTANT,

10. LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.MAJNU KOMATH

The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH

 Dated :01/12/2006

 O R D E R
                               KURIAN JOSEPH, J.

                        -----------------------------------------

                              O.P.No.13257  of  2003

                        -----------------------------------------

                  Dated this the 1st day of  December, 2006


                                     JUDGMENT

Ext.P1 order passed by the Labour Court, Ernakulam in C.P.No.15/1997 is under challenge. The issue considered is whether the claim petitioners are entitled to the benefits by way of holiday wages under the provisions of the Kerala Industrial Establishments (National & Festival Holidays) Act 1958. One of the main contentions taken by the petitioner is that since the petitioner had employed only less than 20 workers the Act itself is not applicable. But no such contention is seen taken in the objections in the claim petition. Not only that the evidence available on record is also against the petitioner regarding the number of workmen. The second contention is that some of the claim petitioners have already withdrawn their claim and in the case of some, they had not signed the claim petitions. On a reading of the evidence in entirety it cannot be conclusively said that the signatures were forged. Some of the workmen, true, deposed before the Labour Court that the signature shown to them were not their OP NO.13257/2003 -:2:- signatures. But the contention of the workmen is that only one signature was shown to them. Be that as it may, the total amount awarded is only an amount of Rs.6734/- and that too in respect of the holidays under the provisions of the Act. There are 9 respondents also.

Since the amount involved is such a paltry amount I do not think that the matter should be remitted to the Labour Court for fresh consideration. Since the main ground of attack is not available to the petitioner and since the coverage issue is not taken up before the Labour court, it is not necessary for this court to go into the various other contentions on findings of fact. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed.

(KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE) ahg.

KURIAN JOSEPH, J.

O.P.NO.13257/2003

JUDGMENT 1st December, 2006

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court