IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 29TH MAGHA 1929 OP.No. 7555 of 2000(Y) ---------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- INDIAN BANK, A BODY CORPORATE UNDER SECTION 3 OF THE BANKING COMPANIES (ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS) ACT, 1970 READ WITH THE FIRST SCHEDULE THERETO, HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT 31, RAJAJI SALAI, CHENNAI – 600001, REPRESENTED BY ITS ZONAL MANAGER, INDIAN BANK, ZONAL OFFICE, CHITTOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI – 682 035. BY ADV. SRI.E.SUBRAMANI (SR.) SRI.S.EASWARAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE LABOUR OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. 2. SMT. K.R. VALSALA, MALIYIL HOUSE, PARAPPILLY, KIZHAPARAYAR – P.O., PALAI. BY ADV. SMT.LAKSHMI B.SHENOY THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 7555 of 2000 ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.12555 OF 2000 IN O.P.NO.7555 OF 2000 DISMISSED 18.2.2008 SD/- S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE. APPENDIX EXT.P1: COPY OF ORDER DATED 10.11.1999 IN C.P.NO.6 OF 1993(C) ISSUED BY R1. EXT.P2: COPY OF CLAIM PETITION 26.2.1993 FILED BY R2 BEFORE R1. EXT.P3: COPY OF OBJECTION DATED 8.1.1994 FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO C.P.NO.6 OF 1993(C) BEFORE R1. EXT.P4: COPY OF REPRESENTATION DTD 9.8.1990 FILED BY R2 BEFORE THE ZONAL MANAGER, ERNAKULAM OF THE PETITIONER. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ O.P.No.7555 OF 2000 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the employer in Claim Petition No.6/93 before the Labour Court, Ernakulam filed by the 2nd respondent herein claiming certain amounts due to the 2nd respondent. The same was allowed by Ext.P1 order by the Labour Court directing payment of an amount of Rs.11,326.40/- to the 2nd respondent. Now the petitioner submits that the findings in Ext.P1 is based on an award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Alappuzha in I.D. No.17/94 and that award was set aside in W.A. No.2450/05 by judgment dated 3.7.06 remanding the matter to the Industrial Tribunal for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, pursuant to which the Industrial Tribunal is now adjudicating the industrial dispute afresh. Therefore the counsel for the petitioner submits that since the basis of Ext.P1 order no longer subsists, Ext.P1 cannot have a separate existence and therefore the same is liable to be set aside leaving the parties to work out their remedies after a fresh award is passed in the industrial dispute, pending O.P. No.7555/2000 2 before the Industrial Tribunal, Alappuzha which has now been transferred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam. 2. This is opposed by the counsel for the 2nd respondent. According to the 2nd respondent, the claim in Ext.P1 is for difference in wages in accordance with the bipartite settlement and therefore the contention of the petitioner is not correct. She also submits that apart from that, there is a claim for bonus to the extent of Rs.1636.40/- which is not at all covered by the industrial dispute now stated to be pending before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. From Ext.P1 order, I find that the basis of Ext.P1 order, as far as difference in wages is concerned, is that the 2nd respondent was employed continuously and regularly by the petitioner from 1.5.1988 to 15.1.1993. The Labour court came to this conclusion on the basis of the award which has been set aside and is now pending re-adjudication before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal as per the judgment of this Court in W.A. No.2450/05. Therefore based on that finding O.P. No.7555/2000 3 only, the Labour Court has computed difference in wages payable to the 2nd respondent, on the basis of the bipartite settlement, the applicability of which is also is disputed by the petitioner. Whatever that be, the basis of the order is a finding in the award in industrial dispute that the 2nd respondent was employed continuously and regularly by the petitioner from 1.5.1988 to 15.1.1993. That award having been set aside by this Court the basis of Ext.P1 order has ceased to exist. Therefore, I am satisfied that Ext.P1 order at least to the extent of awarding difference in wages to the 2nd respondent has to be set aside. I do so leaving the parties to work out their remedies after the industrial dispute pending before the Central Industrial Tribunal is re-adjudicated and fresh award passed. 4. However the counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that the claim for bonus which is not the subject matter of the I.D. is still sustainable. The amount involved on that Court is only Rs.1,636.40. It is not disputed that at least for some time the 2nd respondent has worked for the petitioner bank. Therefore I am of opinion that without going into the question on merits the amount can be directed to be paid. Therefore O.P. No.7555/2000 4 the petitioner bank shall pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- to the 2nd respondent in lien of her claim for bonus without going into the eligibility. However the fact that the bonus has been paid to the 2nd respondent shall not be relied upon by the 2nd respondent or his union for proving any of their contentions in the industrial dispute pending before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal. The original petition is disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd O.P. No.7555/2000 5