IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2009 / 13TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 3301 of 2009(R) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.SARATHCHANDRAN, S/O.KUNJAN PILLAI, 43 YEARS, NOW R/AT.VAZHATHARA, OTTAKANDATHIL CHITTOOR PONMANA PO, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.HARIRAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD, TRIVANDRUM. 2. SECRETARY, KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD, TRIVANDRUM. 3. MANAGING DIRECTOR, ALL KERALA COTTAGE MATCH INDUSTRIES FEDERATION (MATCH FED), KOLLAM. SC SRI. K.P.HARISH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION A/W.WP(C).No.3306/09ON 02/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------------- W.P.(C).Nos.3301 & 3306 OF 2009 --------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2009. JUDGMENT Challenge in these writ petitions is against the award of the Labour Court, Kollam in I.D.Nos.6/08 and 4/08. The issue referred for adjudication was regarding the validity of the retrenchment of the workmen concerned. The Labour Court found the retrenchment to be invalid and directed that the workmen be paid the retrenchment compensation, notice pay and compensation of of Rs.25,000/- each. 2. The first contention raised is that 3rd respondent employer is the agent of the first respondent and therefore irrespective of whether the 3rd respondent is defunct or not, the Labour Court ought to have directed reinstatement under the Ist respondent. The Labour Court while discussing the claim for reinstatement has found that the there is no employer-employee relationship between the WP(c).Nos.3301/09& anor. 2 workmen and the first respondent. Labour court also found that the third respondent is defunct since 2004. It was on that basis that the claim for reinstatement has been rejected. Petitioners have not substantiated before me that there was any employer-employee relationship between the Khadi and Village Industries Board and the petitioners. If that be so, the conclusion of the Labour court cannot be said to be faulty. Further the case of the petitioners is that the third respondent is an agent of the Ist respondent and hence the Ist respondent is liable to provide employment to them. Nothing has been shown to me to conclude that the Ist respondent is the Principal employer. Even if it is so, there is no provision in the Industrial Disputes Act, creating liability on the principal employer to provide employment. 3. It was then contended that the establishment is functioning and therefore the compensation ought not have been limited to 20.7.2004, when the workmen were illegally retrenched. A reading of the award shows that the admitted WP(c).Nos.3301/09& anor. 3 case of the parties was that the establishment was defunct from July, 2004 onwards. It was therefore that the Labour court limited the retrenchment compensation till that date. If an establishment is defunct, the workmen could not have had employment, in which case the retrenchment compensation for the period after the establishment become defunct cannot be claimed. Therefore the second contention also does not deserve any consideration. I do not find any substance in the writ petition. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/