IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 5TH DECEMBER 2008 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 1506 of 2008(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.5485/2008 Dated 15/02/2008 .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE COIRFED EMPLOYEES CONGRESS (INTUC), COIRFED, ALAPPUZHA -12, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT A.A.SHUKKUR, S/O. AHAMED KUNJU, AGED 50 YEARS, (KURUMPELIL HOUSE, SEA VIEW WARD, ALAPPUZHA). 2. A.YACOB, (S/O. AHAMMED KUNJU, AGED 51 YEARS, MACHINE ASSISTANT, R.C.P. UNIT, COIRFED ALAPPUZHA -12, (PANACHUVEEDU, LAJNATH WARD, ALAPPUZHA). BY ADV. SRI.K.KARTHIKEYA PANICKER SMT.DAYA K. PANICKER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- ANIL K.R., AGED 48 YEARS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE COIR MARKETING FEDERATION LTD., (COIRFED), ALAPPUZHA -12. ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN, SC, COIRFED SRI.GEORGE MATHEW, SC, COIRFED THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- Cont. case(C).No.1506 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioners seek to espouse a case of workmen in the R.C.P. unit of the Kerala State Co-operative Coir Marketing Federation Ltd., hereinafter, for short, 'Coirfed'. They filed W.P(C). 33962/07 touching the question whether those workmen are entitled to certain holidays and whether the management acted contrary to law in treating the absence of the workmen on those holidays as indiscipline. Annexure A1 judgment was issued relegating the petitioners to move the appropriate authority for resolution of the disputes in terms of the Industrial Laws. Later, the petitioners moved this Court by filing W.P(C).5485/08 on the plea that while the matter is pending before authorities by way of conciliation proceedings, certain disciplinary proceedings have been initiated and enquiry officer appointed for a domestic enquiry. This Court, therefore, issued Annexure A4 judgment, ordering that unless proceedings initiated by the authorities COC.1506/08 Page numbers under the labour laws is concluded, no punishment shall be imposed, though the domestic enquiry as part of disciplinary proceedings could go on. This contempt of court case is filed on the allegation that deductions are being made from the salaries, of amounts equivalent to the pay for the days' of absence even after Annexure A4 judgment. Deduction in salary is essentially on the principle of “no work no pay”. This obviously is not imposition of any punishment as such. Not only that, what has been interdicted by this Court in Annexure A4 judgment is the imposition of punishment pursuant to the domestic enquiry and disciplinary proceedings referred to in that judgment. On query by this Court in the aforesaid line, learned counsel for the petitioner states that without settling the issue regrading the entitlement of the employees of R.C.P. wing to enjoy the holidays, the management could not have the liberty to withhold the pay of days on which the workmen would be absent and that if the labour authorities conclude in favour of the management, it COC.1506/08 Page numbers would be still within the liberty of the management to recover such amounts from the workmen. Rather, it would be to say that the workmen should be paid for work not done and if they were not entitled to be paid for their absence, they would later refund or return the pay received for those days. This cannot be. If the labour authorities decide ultimately in favour of the workmen, it would be necessarily the obligation of the management to pay the wages for those days also in which they had abstained from work, treating those days as holidays. In such event, if the management does not pay, the workmen would have the right to enforce the decision of the competent authority under the Industrial Disputes Act. There is no corresponding or corollary right or procedure statutorily conferred on the management to realise amounts from the workmen. Whatever be the modalities that can apply to such situation, I am clear in my mind that no action for contempt of court would lie on the basis of the allegations made in this petition as against the respondent Managing Director of the employer society. The case COC.1506/08 Page numbers fails. The same is accordingly dismissed without prejudice to proceedings, if any, in terms of the labour laws. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.