IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY FRIDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2011 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 12316 of 2005(N) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- SOBHA INDUSTRIAL TRAINING CENTRE, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL, K.R.PURAM P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.NANDAKUMAR SRI.T.K.RAJESHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LABOUR DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. K.S.JALAJA DEVI ALIAS JALAJA CHANDRAN, VALIAKULATHINKAL, AROOR P.O., AROOR MURI, AROOR VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3. THE LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM. R1 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.M.SANEER R2 BY ADV. DR.V.N.SANKARJEE SRI.HARISREE VELIAKULTHINKAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.12316/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE CLAIM PETITION NO.22 OF 2002 DATED 30/11/01 FILED BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM. P2 COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED IN C.P.NO.22 OF 2002 FILED BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM. P3 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10/12/2004 IN C.P.NO.22/02 OF THE LABOUR COURT,KOLLAM. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R2(A) COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE DATED 23/8/97. R2(B) COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ORIGINAL PETITION NO.21761/2002 R2(C) COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23/9/2002 IN O.P.NO.21761/2002. R2(D) COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.C3/25854/96 DATED 4/1/1997. R2(E) COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16/8/96. R2(F) COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP NO.5202/1997 DATED 12/6/2000. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts B.P. RAY, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 12316 of 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2011. JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Petitioner, Sobha Industrial Training Centre who is the opposite party in C.P. No. 22 of 2002 of Labour Court, Kollam, is an Educational Institution and the 2nd respondent was working as a teacher in the said Institution. While in service she was suspended with effect from 21.02.2000. Thereafter domestic enquiry was conducted and the 2nd respondent was terminated on 15.06.2001. At the time of suspension, she was getting a salary of ` 1152/- which is much less than the minimum wages fixed by the Government of Kerala. The 2nd respondent filed a Claim Petition as C.P. No. 22 of 2002 before the Labour Court, Kollam claiming ` 1,01,200.50 as arrears of wages. The Labour Court, Kollam as per order dated 10.12.2004 allowed the said petition directing the petitioner herein to pay an amount of `1,01,200.50 to the 2nd respondent. It is the said order which is assailed in this petition. W.P.(C). No.12316/2005 -:2:- 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the 2nd respondent being a teacher, is not a workman within the meaning of Section 2S of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and she is not entitled to claim any amount through the proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the Act. 4. The dispute as to whether the petitioner is a workman or not was adjudicated in the judgment dated 23.09.2002 passed by this Court in O.P No. 21761 of 2002 in which it is observed as follows: “It is the contention of the petitioner that he is not the employer of the institute and that he is only the Principal of the Industrial Training Centre where the first respondent is employed as instructor. It is also contended that the first respondent being a teacher, does not come under the provisions of the Act so as to claim subsistence allowance through the second respondent. I am afraid both contentions cannot be appreciated. Under Section 2(b) of the Act employer defined as the owner of an establishment and includes any person responsible to the owner for supervision and control of the establishment. As far as the training centre is concerned, the petitioner in his capacity as the Principal is responsible to the owner who according to the petitioner is a Trust for the supervision and control. As far as the second contention is concerned, it is seen from Ext.R1(a) experience certificate issued by the petitioner that the first respondent has been working in the institute as an Electrical Instructoress. In the decision of this Court reported in St. George I.T. Centre v. Goorge K. John (1989(1) KLT 132) it has been held that a skilled instructor in an industrial training unit who discharges the work of a technical and supervisory nature cannot be excluded from the definition of an employee under the Act.” Following the aforesaid decision, the matter has attained finality. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the W.P.(C). No.12316/2005 -:3:- contention of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent is not a workman within the meaning of the Act, cannot be sustained. I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. sd/- B.P. RAY, JUDGE. rv W.P.(C). No.12316/2005 -:4:- B.P. RAY, J. ----------------------------------------------------------- O.P.No. 13887 of 2002 ------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of November, 2011. JUDGMENT