IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2009 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1931 OP.No.641 of 2001(B) ------------------------ PETITIONER: -------------- P.C.H. COFFEE HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT RIVER BANK ROAD, THAZHATHANGADI P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR PAUL POONNAN. BY MR.B.SAJEEV KUMAR, ADVOCATE. MR.M.K.THANKAPPAN, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, WAYANAD. 3. THE MALABAR ESTATE WORKERS UNION (INTUC), REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, MEPPADI, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 4. BHARATHIYA MAZDOOR SANGHAM (B.M.S), REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, MEPPADI, WAYANAD. 5. THE FOREST & GENERAL WORKERS UNION, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MEPPADI, WAYANAD. 6. WAYANAD ESTATE LABOUR UNION (CITU), REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, VYTHIRI, WAYANAD DISTRICT. OP.No.641/2001 ...2... 7. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MEPPADI, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY MS. T.B.MINI, ADVOCATE, FOR R3 TO R5. MR.VINCENT JOSEPH, ADVOCATE, FOR R3 TO R5. MS. SMITHA SUKUMAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No.641/2001 Order on C.M.P.No.1041/2001 in OP.No.641/2001 Closed. 24.03.2009 Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE. A P P E N D I X PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT. 18.8.2000 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 7TH RESPONDENT. EXT. P2 : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT.1.9.2000 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 7TH RESPONDENT. EXT. P3 : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT.2.9.2000 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT/D.L.O. EXT. P4 : COPY OF the SHOW CAUSE NOTICE/MEMO OF SUSPENSION DT.4.9.2000 ISSUED TO 7 DELINQUENT EMPLOYEES. EXT. P4(a) : COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE/MEMO OF SUSPENSION DT.4.9.2000 IN RESPECT OF THE 4 OTHER EMPLOYEES. EXT. P5 : COPY OF THE NOTICE DT.4.9.2000 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO ALL THE WORKERS. EXT. P6 : COPY OF the 'LOCK OUT' NOTICE DT.5.9.2000 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT. P7 : COPY OF THE MINUTES OF the MEETING DT. 2.12.2000 BETWEEN THE MANAGEMENT AND THE TRADE UNIONS IN PRESENCE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT/D.L.O. EXT. P8 : COPY OF the ORDER No.B-2082/2000 DT. 2.1.2001 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT. P9 : COPY OF the NOTICE DT. 30.12.2000 ISSUED BY THE ASST. COLLECTOR & ENQUIRY OFFICER, MANANTHAVADI, REGARDING THE DOMESTIC ENQUIRY SCHEDULED ON 4.1.2001. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. // True Copy // P.A. to Judge. smp S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ O.P.No. 641 OF 2001 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the owner of a coffee estate. Eleven of their workers working in the petitioner's estate were suspended on allegations of misconducts. Immediately on the next day, the estate was locked out. By Ext.P8, the District Labour Officer, Wayanad directed the petitioner as follows: “A complaint has been received from the trade union leaders stating that you have not paid subsistence allowance to the eleven suspended workers during the period of lock out. You have to pay the subsistence allowance to the eleven suspended workers even during the period of lock out. Even though the workers are not entitled for wages during the period of lock out subsistence allowance has to be paid. If you are not paying subsistence allowance to the eleven suspended workers during lock out period, within the stipulated time of the agreement, legal steps including prosecution will be initiated against you without further notice”. The petitioner is challenging the said order on two grounds. First is that Ext.P8 order has been passed without hearing the petitioner. Second is that no law empowers the District Labour O.P.No.641/01 2 Officer to pass an order like Ext.P8. 2. The learned Government Pleader on the basis of the counter affidavit filed would contend that Ext.P8 order was passed on the basis of a hearing conducted by the District Collector, after summoning the petitioner and the Union representing the workers. 3. I have considered the matter in detail. 4. Assuming that the District Collector had convened a meeting, the question as to whether subsistence allowance is payable by the petitioner to the suspended workers has to be decided by the appropriate authority under the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act after complying with the procedure prescribed under that Act, that too on applications filed by the workmen. It is not as if the petitioner's contention is totally untenable. It is certainly a question of law as to whether for the purpose of lock out, when none of the employees of the petitioner's were paid wages, the suspended workers alone would be entitled to subsistence allowance. That has to be considered by the authority competent to consider the same under the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act procedure prescribed in which has not been admittedly O.P.No.641/01 3 complied with in this case. In fact the petitioner submits that for the periods after lifting of the lock out subsistence allowance has been paid to the workers. That being so, Ext.P8 is clearly unsustainable. Accordingly, the same is quashed. However, I make it clear that this would not stand in the way of the workmen, who were suspended from approaching the authority under the Kerala Payment Subsistence Allowance Act, for payment of subsistence allowance. The original petition is disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd O.P.No.641/01 4