IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2010 / 2ND ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 31363 of 2003(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- THE MLAMALLY TEA ESTATES LTD., REGD.OFFICE, KOTTAYAM-1, REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, EAPEN P.JOSEPH. BY ADV. SRI.H.B.SHENOY SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY SMT.LAKSHMI B.SHENOY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM. 2. K.M.JOSEPH, SUPERVISOR,MLAMALLY ESTATE, THENGAKKAL PO, VANDIPERIYAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. SABU P.KURUVILA, SUPERVISOR, MLAMALLY ESTATE, THENGAKKAL PO, VANDIPERIYAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT. SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.T.K.MOHANAN R2 BY ADVS. SRI.V.B.PREMACHANDRAN SRI.P.K.SIVADASAN NAIR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.31363/2003 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 26.7.1994 FILED B 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS BEFORE IST RESPONDENT. P2:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 19.8.1993 FIL;ED BY 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS BEFORE DEPUTY LABOUR OFFICER, PEERMADE. P3:- COPY OF THE WRITTEN OBJECITONS DTD. 8.3.1995 FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE IST RESPONDENT IN CP. NO.42/1994. P4:- COPY OF THE REPLICATION DTD. 17.7.1995 FILED BY 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS BEFORE IST RESPONDENT IN CP. 42/1994. P5:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 25.4.1998 PASSED BY IST RESPONDENT IN CP. 42/1994. P6:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 3.11.2000 IN OP. 18586/1998 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. P7:- COPY OF THE TABULAR STATEMENT MARKED AS EXT.D2 BEFORE IST RESPONDENT IN CP. 42/1994. P8:- COPY OF THE TABULAR STATEMENT MARKED AS EXT.D3 BEFORE IST RESPONDENT IN CP.42/1994. P9:- COPY OF THE BONUS RECEIPT FOR 1992-93 SIGNED BY 2ND RESPONDENT AND MARKED AS EXT.D4 BEFORE IST RESPONDENT IN CP. 42/1994. P10:- COPY OF THE BONUS RECEIPT FOR 1992-93 SIGNED BY 3RD RESPONDENT AND MARKED AS EXT.D5 BEFORE IST RESPONDENT IN CP; 42/1994. P11:- COPY OF THE TABULAR STATEMENT MARKED AS EXT.D7 BEFORE IST RESPONDENT IN CP.42/1994. P12:- COPY OF THE NOTES OF ARGUMENTS FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE IST RESPONDENT IN CP. 42/1994. P13:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 22.3.2003 PASSED BY IST RESPONDENT IN CP. 42/1994. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 31363 of 2003 --------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P13 order of the Labour Court, Ernakulam. In a claim petition filed by respondents 2 and 3 herein before the Labour Court under section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, they claimed certain amounts against the petitioner herein, towards arrears of wages. According to them, they were working as Supervisors under the petitioner, from 26.10.1989 and 9.4.1990 respectively. But they were regularised in that post only with effect from December, 1993. Till regularisation they were paid wages only @ Rs.500/- per month. Hence the claim is for difference in wages considering the amounts paid to similar employees working under the petitioner. Petitioner contended before the Labour Court that till regularisation respondents 2 and 3 were paid wages calculated on daily basis at the end of every week. It is disputed that they were paid wages @ Rs.500/- only. The claim for equal wages as in the case of similarly placed persons was also disputed. Exts. D2 and D3 produced before the Labour Court are the statements filed by the petitioner herein, with respect to payment of wages. But the petitioner had failed to produce any proof evidencing payment of wages at such WP(C).31363/2003 2 rates. Based on Ext.P1 filed by respondents 2 and 3 before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, it was contended that they themselves have conceded that they were paid wages @ Rs.800 per month. But the Labour Court found that the petitioner had failed to produce any documentary evidence regarding payment of such wages. So also the Labour Court observed that as per settlement of wages issued by the Plantation Labour Committee, respondents 2 and 3 are entitled for wages claimed by them, less the claim for over time wages for which they could not adduce any convincing proof. Accordingly the Labour Court allowed the claim and respondents 2 and 3 were allowed to realise a sum of Rs.24,278/[ and Rs.23045 respectively as arrears of wages. Petitioner was directed to pay the amount within three months, failing which 6% interest was ordered to be paid till realisation. 2. Heard Sri.Asok B.Shenoy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.V.B.Premachandran learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. Sri.Ashok B.Shenoy submitted that apart from the contentions adverted to by the Labour Court, a serious dispute was raised regarding correctness of the amount claimed which based on the calculation statements attached along with the claim petitions. It is submitted that the rate of DA claimed as per those statements which are produced as Ext. P1 (5) and P1 (6) in the writ petition, are not WP(C).31363/2003 3 true and correct. The argument is that the Labour Court had failed to advert to such a contention and the dispute regarding correctness of the claimed has not been adjudicated. It is further submitted that the 3rd respondent has accepted payments made by the petitioner, to the tune of actual amount due. It is further stated that the 2nd respondent is entitled only for an amount of Rs.5791/- as per the correct calculation. 3. Eventhough it is contended by the petitioner that there is an error in the claim regarding the rate of DA, the 2nd respondent is not in a position to substantiate the same with any convincing materials before this court But I am of the opinion that there is substance in the contention of the petitioner regarding non advertence to the dispute with respect to correctness of the amount claimed. Hence, this aspect need reconsideration by the Labour Court. 4. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of remitting the matter to the Labour Cour, Ernakulam for fresh adjudication on the limited aspect of correctness of the amount of wages claimed, by the 2nd respondent herein, who is the 1st petitioner before the Labour Court. However the petitioner is directed to make payment of the admitted amount of Rs.5800/- to the 2nd respondent within a period of one month from today and to produce proof of such payment before WP(C).31363/2003 4 the Labour Court. 5. In the result, the Labour Court, Ernakulam will consider the question regarding correctness of the claim raised by the 2nd respondent (2nd petitioner before the Labour Court) on the petitioner producing proof regarding payment of Rs.5800/- to the 2nd respondent, within a period of one month from today. Parties will be permitted to adduce further documentary evidence if any available in order to substantiate their claims. A decision in this regard shall be taken as early as possible, at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C).31363/2003 5