IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 35798 of 2007(J) -------------------------- CP.13/2003 of LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------ THE GENERAL MANAGER, COVEMA FILAMENTS LTD., COCHIN SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE, KAKKANAD. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.ABRAHAM SRI.S.S.NAIR SRI.BIJU MARTIN SRI.SAMUEL JOHN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KOCHURANI.K.A., KARUPPASSERY HOUSE, RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR, THUTHIYOOR, KAKKANAD. 2. CHANDRIKA.K.A., KANNANKERY HOUSE, CHEETETHUKARA, KAKKANAD P.O. 3. SARITHA.K.K., KOTTETH HOUSE, THUTHIYOOR, KAKKANAD P.O. 4. RETHY SURESH, KORTHATTU HOUSE, KOLLAMKUDY MUGAL, THRIKKAKKARA P.O. 5. SINDHUMOL.A.G., ALUNKAL HOUSE, EDAMATTOM P.O., EDAMATTOM, KOTTAYAM. 6. LUCY RADHAKRISHNAN, PONNACHYIL HOUSE, UPPUTHODE P.O., CHALI CITY, IDUKKI. 7. BEENA SEBASTIAN, PONNACHIYIL HOUSE, UPPUTHODE P.O., CHALI CITY, IDUKKI. WP(C).No. 35798/2007/J -2- 8. MANJU ANTONY, ALLUKMAL HOUSE, UPPUTHODE P.O., CHALI CITY, IDUKKI. 9. VINCY JODSON, KOCHANGALATHU HOUSE, AZAD ROAD, KALOOR. 10. SINDHU SUBRAMANIAN, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, THUTHIYOOR, KAKKANAD. 11. GIRIJA.A.K., APPAKUDATHU HOUSE, VADACODE P.O., KANGARAPPADY. 12. AMBIKA.M.A., MANDOTHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, THUTHIYOOR, KAKKANAD. 13. JAMEELA.A., SAINABA MANZIL, ALAPPUZHA P.O., GURUPURAM EAST. 14. PRASANNAKUMARI.M.R., MARANGATTIL HOUSE, VALLAKOM, VAIKOM. 15. SUNITHA SAJI, NARANTTU HOUSE, CONVENT ROAD, PONNURUNNI, VYTTILA. 16. POULINE JOSEPH, PANDIYATHUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, KAKKANAD, CHITTETHUKARA. 17. RAVINDRAN.G., VADEETTUVILA THEKKEMURI, EAST KALLADA P.O., KOLLAM. 18. NIXON.K.K., KARUVELIL HOUSE, KAKKANAD P.O., NEAR T.V.CENTRE, COCHIN-30. 19. SLEEBATCHAN, MURINGANATH HOUSE, KAKKANAD P.O., NEAR T.V.CENTRE, COCHIN-30. 20. SIVAN.K.S., KALATHIL HOUSE, PANAMPUKADU, VALLARPADAM P.O., KOCHI. 21. SHIBU.K.R., KALLAMTHOTTATHIL, MERANGOLY P.O., ALAPPUZHA. 22. SAJI.K.N., KANNATTU HOUSE, EARIKKADU P.O., THANNEERMUKKAM, ALAPPUZHA. 23. SURESH.M.K., MOONJELY HOUSE, ATTARA, MOOKKANNUR P.O., ERNAKULAM. 24. NAIJU JOHN, THEKKENATH HOUSE, MANAKKAKADAVU, THENGODE P.O., ERNAKULAM. WP(C).No. 35798/2007/J -3- 25. THOMAS.M.J., MANGALETH HOUSE, KAKKANAD P.O., KOCHI-682 030. 26. BINU.M.K., MALAYIL PARAMBIL, VAZHAVARA P.O., NIRMALA CITY, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 27. SHAJI.M, MALIAKAL HOUSE, NEELESWARAM P.O., KALADY, MALAYATTOOR. 28. MATHEW ANTONY, PANAKKAL HOUSE, SOUTH BRIDGE AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN-36. 29. JOHN.P.T., POTTOMKUZHIYIL HOUSE, VADAKKENIRAPPU P.O., NEEZHOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 612. 30. AJU.C.A., CHEMPUTHARA HOUSE, CHENNAMKARY P.O., ALAPPUZHA -688 501. 31. RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R., PONNACHIYIL HOUSE, UPPUTHODU P.O., CHALI CITY, IDUKKI. 32. THE LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN SRI.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI SRI.THUSHAR NIRMAL SARATHY SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR SMT.K.M.RAMYA SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.M.R.SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 35798/2007/J APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1: COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DT. 8.11.2002. EXT. P2: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DT. 29.9.2003. EXT. P3: COPY OF THE PROOF AFFIDAVIT. EXT. P4: COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE DT. 20.11.2006. EXT. P5: COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 28.11.2006 OF THE LABOUR COURT ERNAKULAM. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE JP S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ======================= W.P.(C) No.35798 of 2007 (J) ======================= Dated this the 25th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the employer in CP No.13 of 2003 before the Labour Court, Ernakulam. They are challenging Ext.5 order of the Labour Court in that CP, whereby they were directed to pay to respondents 1 to 31 herein, wages for the period from 11.7.2002 to 2-10-2002 during which period the establishment was closed. The petitioner raised a specific contention before the Labour Court that in the absence of a decision by a competent authority regarding the entitlement of the respondents 1 to 31 for wages during the period of closure, the claim petition filed under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is not maintainable in so far as the proceedings under Section 33(C)(2) is in the nature of execution proceedings and only ascertained rights which can be computed in terms of money can be enforced through proceedings under that Section. According to them, before the respondents 1 to 31 can be given relief of payment of W.P.(C) No.35798/2007/J -2- wages during the period of closure, there should be a specific finding by a competent authority to the effect that the closure is illegal without which the Labour Court could not have directed payment of wages for the said period. 2. The contention of the respondents 1 to 31 is that the matter is covered by Ext.P1 settlement between the parties wherein in clause VI(2) the union reserves the right to prefer claim petition for wages during closure period from 11.7.2002 to 2.10.2002, which right only they are exercised by filing the claim petition before the Labour Court. According to them, therefore the claim petition is perfectly maintainable. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. In case an establishment is closed either temporarily or permanently, the right of employees of the establishment for wages during that period depends on the validity or otherwise of such closure. It is settled law that Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is in the nature of execution proceedings which can be enforced by a workman only for enforcement of their ascertained rights which can be computed in terms of money. For that, there must be a finding by a competent W.P.(C) No.35798/2007/J -3- authority that the workman have such a right which can be computed in terms of money. Whether the respondents 1 to 31 are entitled for wages during the period of closure essentially depends on the validity or otherwise of the closure. Without some competent authority declaring the closure as invalid, the Labour Court would not get jurisdiction to direct payment of wages to the workman during the period of closure in exercise of powers under Section 33(C)(2). 4. Of course in Ext.P1, settlement between the parties, there is a clause VI(2) which reads thus: "The union reserve the right to prefer claim petition for wages during closure period from 11.7.02 to 2.10.2002." In that settlement, there is no agreement by the management that the closure is invalid and that they would pay wages to the workman for the period of closure. By the above provision, the union only reserved their right to prefer claim petition for wages during closure period. That cannot cloth the Labour Court with jurisdiction to direct payment of wages for the period. In this case, since the validity of closure is yet to be determined by any competent authority, the Labour Court would W.P.(C) No.35798/2007/J -4- not get jurisdiction to order the petitioner to pay wages to the workman during the period of closure. Therefore, clearly Ext.P5 order of the Labour Court in CP No.13/2003 has been passed without jurisdiction. Accordingly, Ext.P5 is quashed. However, the right of the union representing the respondents 1 to 31 to raise an industrial dispute challenging the validity of the closure seeking wages for the period of closure is left open to be agitated by the union in appropriate proceedings. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE jp /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE