IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2009 / 16TH POUSHA 1930 WA.No. 1383 of 2006() -------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.31767/2005 Dated 19/06/2006 .................... APPELLANT(S): 2ND RESPONDENT: ----------------------------- M. MADHAVAN NAIR, JAYASREE, CALICUT ROAD, MANJERI. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS 1,3 & 4: -------------------- ---- 1. K. KRISHNAN NAIR, RADHA NIVAS, KOZHIKODE ROAD, MANJERI. 2. K. DIVAKARAN NAIR, C/O. SECRETARY DISTRICT ROAD TRANSPORT EMPLOYEES UNION DISTRICT COMMITTEE (CITU) P.O. MALAPPURAM. 3. K. UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O. K. KRISHNAN NAIR, RADHA NIVAS, KOZHIKODE ROAD, MANJERI. 4. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD. ADV. SRI.V.G.SANKARAN FOR R3 SRI.P.RAVINDRAN (SR.) FOR R1 SRI.THOMAS ANTONY FOR R2 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/01/2009, ALONG WITH WA NO. 1468 OF 2006 WA NO. 890 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B. KOSHY, Ag. CHIEF JUSTICE & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ........................................................................ W.A.Nos. 1383 & 1468 OF 2006 AND 890 OF 2008 ......................................................................... Dated this the 6th January, 2009 J U D G M E N T KOSHY, Ag. CJ. : Challenging the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad, the 1st management filed the Writ Petition. He was the registered owner of the bus in which the workman was employed as a driver. Before the Industrial Tribunal, the workman contended that his service was terminated illegally without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, while he was employed by the managements. The Industrial Tribunal found that he was employed by the appellant in Writ Appeal No.1468 of 2006 ( viz., the first management) and directed him to reinstate the workman after finding that the termination of his service was illegal. The Tribunal also directed to pay back wages from 1986 till the date of reinstatement. But the management was given option to retrench his service after complying with the legal formalities of the reinstatement with back wages. W.A.Nos. 1383 & 1468 OF 2006 AND 890 OF 2008 2 2. In the impugned judgment, the learned single Judge held that the appellant in W.A.No. 1468 of 2006 was not the employer, but the appellant in W.A.No.1383 of 2006 (viz., the second management) was the real employer and that he should reinstate the employee/workman without back wages. If he is not suitable to drive the vehicle he can be paid retrenchment compensation for the period from 1986 till the date of reinstatement. The learned single Judge also directed the appellant in W.A.No. 1468 of 2006 (the 1st management) to pay 17B wages to the workman from the date of the award till the date of the judgment as he was directed to reinstate the workman and that finding was challenged by him by filing a Writ Petition. On behalf of the workman, W.A.No. 890 of 2008 was filed. It is contended by the workman that in the establishment of the respondents, no retirement age is fixed and therefore he cannot be superannuated. It is further contended that his service can be terminated only when he is unsuitable for employment after complying with the provisions under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Since the provisions of Section 25 -F were not complied with, the termination was illegal and he is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages. 3. On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of the W.A.Nos. 1383 & 1468 OF 2006 AND 890 OF 2008 3 managements that since the retirement age is fixed as 60 under the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act and he is unable to do the driving, the question of reinstatement will never arise, as he is now aged 73 . The Supreme Court has also held that even if there is violation of the provisions of Section 25 F, reinstatement with back wages need not be granted always and relief has to be moulded. 3. In these circumstances, we directed the parties to settle the matter . After discussion, the learned advocates appearing for the managements and workman left the matter to be decided by the court. It is assured by all the advocates that they will accept the subsequent judgment of this court. Hence we suggested a proposal which was accepted. In the said circumstance, the appellant in W.A.No.1383 of 2006 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- in lieu of question of reinstatement and the appellant in W.A.No.1468 of 2006 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- in lieu of 17-B wages. Learned counsel for the workman submitted that it is agreeable to him provided the above said amounts are paid within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Hence we direct that the above amounts (Rs.10,000/- each) shall be paid by the appellants in W.A.No. 1383 of 2006 and 1468 of 2006 within a W.A.Nos. 1383 & 1468 OF 2006 AND 890 OF 2008 4 period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment in full settlement of the claims of the workman, failing which the impugned judgment will become operative. The Writ Appeals are disposed of as above. J.B. KOSHY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk