Kerala High Court
Unknown vs By Adv.Sri.P.Ramakrishnan on 14 February, 2017
Author: K. Vinod Chandran
Bench: K.Vinod Chandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 18TH POUSHA, 1939
WA.No. 2515 of 2017 IN WPC. 23600/2006
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 23600/2006 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED
14-02-2017
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER.
WORKER'S CONGRESS
REG.NO.6.2.93, MUNNAR, KERALA.685612,
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY.
BY ADV.SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS:
1. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL,
IDUKKI. PIN.685603.
2. VAGAVURRAI ESTATE,
TALLIAR PO, MUNNAR, IDUKKI.685618,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI RENIL ANTO
R2 BY SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-01-2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
jma
K. Vinod Chandran & Ashok Menon, JJ
- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.A No.2515 of 2017
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 08th day of January, 2018
J U D G M E N T
K. Vinod Chandran, J The appellant impugn the judgment of the learned Single Judge wherein a limited interference was made to the award passed by the Labour Court. The petitioner claims that the petitioner is entitled to the back wages for the period she was illegally kept out of employment.
2. The brief facts to be noticed are that the worker, the appellant, was proceeded against for unauthorised occupation of a line room. The worker was employed with the 2nd respondent from 1971 onwards. In 1984, she married one Rajendran, who was the son of one Meyyalagu who was a worker of the 2nd respondent. The said Meyyalagu was W.A 2515/2017 : 2 : originally in occupation of the line room. Meyyalagu was proceeded against for misconduct, pending which he expired in 1988. The appellant along with Meyyalagu's family continued occupation of the building. One Mohan, another son of Meyyalagu and the wife of Meyyalagu were sought to be evicted by filing a suit numbered as O.S No.289/1999 before the Munsiff's Court, Devikulam. In the meanwhile, the electricity charges and grazing charges; the latter deeming the cattle owned by Meyyalagu to be in the custody of the appellant/worker, were recovered from her salary. When the suit was pending, Mohan is said to have vacated the line room and the respondent then sought to implead the appellant/worker by Ext.P1 application dated 07.03.2001.
3. The appellant /worker continued occupation of the line room allotted to Meyyalagu on the premise that she was allotted only a kitchen room as residential quarters. The 2nd W.A 2515/2017 : 3 : respondent simultaneous to the impleadment made in the suit, initiated disciplinary proceedings alleging unauthorised occupation of a line room. The disciplinary proceedings ended in a finding of guilt and the appellant/worker was dismissed from service.
3. An industrial dispute was raised which was answered in favour of the management as per Ext.P6. The Tribunal first considered the question of violation of principles of natural justice as a preliminary issue. It was found, after a perusal of the records, that the workman was granted every opportunity to defend her case. Workman had participated in the enquiry and had also put her thumb impression in the proceeding papers. There is also no allegation of violation of principles of natural justice raised before this Court in the writ petition nor in the writ appeal. Hence to that extent the award is unassailable. W.A 2515/2017 : 4 :
4. The further contention was with respect to the unauthorised occupation. The workman/appellant asserted that she was not in unauthorised occupation for reason of the 2nd respondent Management having deducted electricity charges from her salary. This continued from the date of the death of her father-in-law up to the date of initiation of proceedings departmentally. It is also contended that Rule 62 of the Kerala Plantations Labour Rules, 1959 provides for allotment of a quarter on the termination of a workman, to his family member if that family member is also a workman. The appellant/workman ought to have been allotted such quarters, is the further contention.
5. The learned Single Judge found that the finding of guilt insofar as the misconduct alleged of unautorised occupation of a line quarter, was perfectly correct. The order of dismissal from 2001 was however held to be harsh, W.A 2515/2017 : 5 : considering the circumstances as also the the misconduct alleged. There was a limited interference made to the order which can be said to be an interference made under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The learned Single Judge directed that the appellant/worker be considered as discharged from service on the date of her superannuation granting her terminal benefits as on the date of superannuation. The punishment was, insofar as the denial of back-wages between 2001 and 2014, the date on which she was suspended from employment and later superannuated. The learned Single Judge also noticed that this would be sufficient, insofar as sending a clear message to the other workmen from resorting to such illegal practices and occupying a room not allotted to them.
6. Section 62 of the Rules of 1959 speaks of allotment and occupation of houses. The proviso makes it W.A 2515/2017 : 6 : clear that if more than one member of a family is engaged under the respondent, only one worker will be allotted the quarter. The 2nd proviso mandates that in the case of termination of service of the workman, in whose name the house was allotted, the house shall be allotted in the name of any other member of the family who is a worker. The proviso ensures that merely for termination of one worker in a family the family of is not evicted from the quarters, if another member is also a worker. This is especially necessary since the first proviso indicates that only one quarter would be allotted to a family, even if there are more than one members of the family employed in the Management estate. As is seen from the records, the appellant is the daughter-in-law of the workman who expired. The definition of family is available in the Plantation Labour Act, 1951 which only includes the spouse of the worker and the legitimate and adopted children W.A 2515/2017 : 7 : who are dependent upon him and when the worker is a man, his parents dependent upon him. A daughter-in-law does not come within the definition of a family.
7. It is also to be noticed that in the present case, the 2nd respondent has a specific contention that there was a room allotted to the appellant/worker which the learned Counsel for the appellant submits is not borne out by any evidence. However, the appellant herself asserted before the Labour Court and before the learned Single Judge that the occupation of the line room allotted to her father-in-law was continued after his death since the allotment made to her was of a single kitchen room which could not accommodate her family. In such circumstances, going by the clear admission, it cannot be said that the petitioner had not been allotted another room for her residential occupation.
8. The further argument raised is on the deduction W.A 2515/2017 : 8 : made from her salary of the electricity charges and the grazing charges. The grazing charges would not at all affect the occupation of the premises. It is seen from the records that after the death of Meyyalagu his sons and wife along with the appellant /worker were in occupation of the premises. Neither the sons or the wife or any other family member was a worker of the 2nd respondent. It was hence the 2nd respondent made deduction of electricity charges, for which admittedly the resident of the line room was liable. The appellant who was a worker was one of the occupants and hence the deduction of electric charges from her salary cannot be faulted. This does not in any manner regularise the residence of the appellant/worker in the line room allotted to her father-in-law; after his death.
9. The fact that the misconduct for unauthorised occupation was alleged against the appellant/worker in 2001 W.A 2515/2017 : 9 : would also not aid the worker/appellant in challenging the proceedings. True that the appellant/worker had continued in the premises for long unauthorisedly. There could be no challenge raised on the proceedings initiated after a number of years since she had never been allotted the room and her residence therein was not authorised and never regularised.
10. We also see from the award of the Labour Court that during the pendency of the proceedings, the Labour Court had specifically enquired with the authorised representative of the union as to whether the workman was prepared to move out from the line room occupied by her and continued un-authorisedly. After getting instruction from the workman, the offer put forth by the Labour Court was declined. This shows the recalcitrant attitude of the workman in having continued the occupation of the premises, despite the workman having been dismissed from service in W.A 2515/2017 : 10 : conclusion of the enquiry proceedings initiated against her on the specific charge of un-authorised occupation of the line room.
11. We are also informed that the workman had attained the age of superannuation in the year 2014 and even now, she is continuing in the premises. As observed by the learned Single Judge, this would definitely send a very wrong message to the other workers of the management. The appellant/workman definitely is not entitled to continue the occupation after her superannuation. We also do not find any reason to further interfere with the punishment as ordered by the learned Single Judge. The only punishment now awarded by the learned Single Judge to the workman/appellant is loss of backwages when she was kept out of employment. The learned Single Judge has been indulgent insofar as granting superannuation benefits as on the date of superannuation deeming her to have continued till her superannuation. We W.A 2515/2017 : 11 : reject the appeal and direct the workman/appellant to vacate the premises within a period of three months failing which she shall be summarily evicted. The terminal benefits as directed in the judgment of the learned Single Judge shall be paid within a period of three months failing which the appellant/workman would be entitled to continue in occupation till such amounts are paid.
Writ appeal is dismissed with the above reservation. No costs.
Sd/-
K. Vinod Chandran, Judge Sd/-
Ashok Menon,
Judge
jma //true copy//
P.A to Judge