IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 24TH JANUARY 2011 / 4TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 14489 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- ( CP.68/2002 of LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: -------------------- THE SREE NARAYANA SEVA SANGHAM, REGISTRAR NO.570, MUNAMBAM, PALLIPORT, PIN: 683 515, REP.BY ITS PRESIDENT MR.T.C.PRAKLASAN THACHAPILLY HOUSE, PALLIPORT, ERNAKULAM, BY ADVS. SRI.V.A.PRADEEP KUMAR SMT.JENNY THANKAM RESPONDENT: -------------------- GIRIJA PREEDHAMAN W/O.PREEDHAMAN, AGED 48 YEARS, PADINJAREVEETIL, MUNAMBAM, PALLIPORT PO, ERNAKULAM- 683 515. BY ADVS. SRI.P.M.BENZIR SRI.G.G.MANOJ SRI.JAICE JACOB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 14489 of 2008(Y) --------------------------------------- APPENDIX ---------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT.P1. COPY OF THE ORDER IN C.P.NO.68/2002 TO ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 27.2.08. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN ST NO.2971/2000 ON THE FILE OF THE JFCM COURT, N. PARAVUR DATED 16.10.2004. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE ORDER IN WRIT APPEAL NO.2884/2007 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 2.4.2008. EXT.P4. COPY OF ORDER IN W.A. NO.2884/07 & IA. 561/08 DATED 26.6.08 EXT.P5. COPY OF REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DT. 27.5.2008. EXT.P6. PHOTO COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIOER IN C.P.NO.68/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE LABOUR COURT, EKM. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS -------------------------------------- EXT.R1(A). COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 19.09.1998 SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.R1(B). COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT DATED 22.09.1998 PREPARED BY THE ALO. EXT.R1(C). COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE JFCM, N.PARAVUR IN S.T. 538/99. EXT.R1(D). COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITY UNDER THE MINIMUM WAGES ACT DATED 13./07/2001 IN MWA 8/1999. EXT/R1(E). COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 16.11.2002 IN O.P. NO.26152/2001. EXT.R1(F). COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE DIVISION BENCH DATED 09.06.04 IN W.A.290/03. EXT.R1(G). COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 23.04.2007 IN C.P.76 OF 1999. EXT.R1(H) COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONBLE COURT DATED 13.0-09.2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO.26291 OF 2007. EXT.R1(I). COPY OF THE OFFICE BILLS ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR THE PERIOD FROM NOVEMBER 1999 TO JULY 2001. / TRUE CPY / P.A. TO JUDGE VK S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 14489 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the opposite party in C.P. No.68/2002 of the Hon'ble Labour Court, Ernakulam in which Ext.P1 order was passed by the Labour Court directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.42,747/- to the respondent herein as arrears of wages for the period from November 1999 to 30.06.2001. The grounds in the writ petition are as follows: “A. it is submitted that, as per Ext.P1 order passed by the Labour Court, Ernakulam is against the law, facts and circumstances of the case. B. It is submitted that, Labour Court has not considered properly the disposition (sic) of PW1 examined in CP No.76/99. C. It is submitted that respondent has worked in the petitioners society as a collection agent and not as a clerk. Moreover there is no working time prescribed by the petitioner. D. It is submitted that respondent was worked as collection agent in the petitioners society as and when the savings scheme introduced by the petitioners society. E. It is submitted that on the basis of the Exhibit P3 judgment there is a finding that the respondent has not adduced any evidence to show that she was an employee of the Sree Narayana Seva Sangham. This finding became final because there is no appeal preferred by the respondent. It is submitted that this aspect is not properly considered by the labour court at the time of passing Exhibit P1 order. Moreover it is submitted that W.P.(C)No. 14489 of 2008 -2- petitioner has filed criminal appeals before the Hon'ble Addl. Sessions Court,N. Paravur against the judgment of the pleading guilty on the file of the JFCM court, N. Paravur. It is further submitted that the report of the Asst. Labour Officer was not correct because the Secretary of the respondent society was considered as an employee of the respondent. F. It is submitted that in the light of the decision reported in 2007 LLR page 1260 held that the burden of proof to have worked as clerk in the petitioner's society upon the respondent. But there is no legal evidence adduced by the respondent in order to show that she is worked as a clerk in the petitioner's society.” 2. The petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “A) Call for records as per Exhibit P1. B) A writ of certiorari to quash exhibit P1 in the interest of justice. C) Any other writ or direction directing the respondent in the fact and circumstances of this case.” 3. The respondent would contend that during the course of arguments before the Labour Court the petitioner themselves admitted the employer-employee relationship. It is further submitted that as evidenced by Ext.P8 marked before the Labour Court which are office bills issued to the customers by the petitioner during January 2000 to June 2001 it is abundantly clear that the petitioner was working up to June 2001. The petitioner has produced those bills as W.P.(C)No. 14489 of 2008 -3- Ext.R1 (i). Therefore according to the respondent there is nothing wrong in Ext.P1 order and the petitioner is entitled to receive the amount in question as arrears of wages. The counsel for the respondent would further submit that since there was no stay granted in this writ petition, the Labour Department had proceeded against the rental income receivable by the petitioner for a building belonging to the petitioner, which has been collected and is kept with the Labour Department. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. On going through Ext.P1, I do not find that it is a well written order with sufficient reasoning for the conclusions. But from the same it is evident that in the course of arguments the petitioner did not dispute the employer-employee relationship which has been stated so in more than one place in the judgment. It also appears that there were several litigations as between the petitioner and the respondent, in all of which the respondent succeeded. The petitioner was even convicted for violation of the W.P.(C)No. 14489 of 2008 -4- provisions of the Minimum Wages Act. No oral evidence has been adduced by either party. But documents have been marked. Ext.R1 (i) series is marked as Ext.P8 before the Labour Court. There is no contra evidence to dispute Ext.R1 (i) series. Those bills are issued by the respondent to the customers of the petitioner for payment of chitty instalments. According to the petitioner those are bills which the customers did not want to take with them. In any event the petitioner has not chosen to dispute Ext.R1 (i) series. Ext.R1(i) series is for the period for 2000 and 2001 up to June 2001. According to me, those undisputed bills would prove that the respondent was working in the petitioner's establishment till June 2001 at least. Before the Labour Court, the petitioner took the contention that the petitioner is not entitled to any amount since the petitioner had not worked in the establishment at all. Therefore the petitioner has no case that the wages have been paid to the respondent from November 1999 to June 2001. Since the respondent has proved that she was in employment of the W.P.(C)No. 14489 of 2008 -5- petitioner till 30.06.2001, I am satisfied that the Labour Court was right in holding that the petitioner had not paid wages during the period November 1999 to 30.06.2001 to the respondent. That amount has been quantified as Rs.42,747/-. The petitioner has not chosen to challenge the quantification of the amount also. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the challenge against Ext.P1. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. If the Labour authorities had recovered the amount from the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P1 order of the Labour Court, the same shall be paid to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment before that authority. Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE The word “petitioner” occurring in the 3rd line of the last paragraph of the judgment dated 24/01/2011 in WP(C) 14489/2008 is substituted by the word “respondent” as per order dated 17/02/2011 in I.A. 2423/2011 in WP (C) 14489/2008. sd/- shg/ Registrar (Judicial)