IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 1ST AUGUST 2011 / 10TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 6176 of 2010(V) ----------------------------------- CP.14/2007 of LABOUR COURT, KANNUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- T.P.P.SHABEER, S/O.IBRAHIMKUTTY AGED 44 YEARS, MANAGER/PROPRIETOR M/S. CROWN MARKETING CENTRE, PUTHIYIATHARU, P.O.CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR-11 BY ADV. SRI.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. C.LAKSHMANAN, SREE PADMAM KARATTU PARAMBA, AADOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. ANIL A, ARAKKAN HOUSE KAMBIL, P.O.NARATH, KANNUR DISTRICT 4. E.SIVAN, VALLURE CHALIL HOUSE P.O. CHALA EAST, KANNUR. 5. K.N.PRABHAKARAN, KAYAN HOUSE PUTHIYATHARU MANDAPAM, P.O.CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR DIST. 6. N.RAJU, PALLIKKAVID HOUSE, KUNNUMKAI, PO CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR DIST. 7. K.PURUSHOTHAMAN, KALLAN HOUSE CHARUKUNNU, P.O.KOLACHERI, KANNUR DIST. 8. T.SUDHEER, KILACHA VALAPPIL HOUSE, P.O.CHALA EAST, KANNUR DIST. 9. LABOUR COURT, KANNUR. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.S.ABDUL SALAM R2 TO R8 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN SRI.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.6176/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE JFCM II, KANNUR IN STC NO.4385/1999 DTD. 27.6.2001. P2:- COPY OF THE AWARD OF THE LABOUR COURT, KANNUR IN ID. 16/2000 DTD. 20.7.2006. P3:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC. 26890/2007 DTD. 11.9.2007. FILED ON 10.9.2007. P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE LABOUR COURT, KANNUR IN CLAIM PETITION NO.14/2007. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL: TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.6176 of 2010 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st August, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the Proprietor of an establishment engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of wooden furniture. Respondents 2 to 8 were employees of the said establishment. They were denied employment with effect from 19.3.1999. They raised a dispute and the said dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Kannur for adjudication as I.D.No.16 of 2000. By Ext.P2 award passed on 20.7.2006 the Labour Court overruled the contentions raised by the petitioner and held that the denial of employment to respondents 2 to 8 is not justifiable. Consequently an award was passed directing their reinstatement in service with back wages and continuity of service. The petitioner challenged that award by filing W.P.(C)No.26890 of 2007 in this Court. By Ext.P3 judgment delivered on 11.9.2007, the writ petition was dismissed. In the meanwhile, on 12.2.2007 respondents 2 to 8 filed C.P.No.14 of 2007 under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking payment of back wages during the W.P(C).No.6176 of 2010 -:2:- period from 19.3.1999 to October 2006, including bonus and festival allowance. The petitioner entered appearance through counsel and repeatedly sought adjournments. He also filed Writ Appeal No.2937 of 2007 challenging Ext.P3 judgment. The said writ appeal was dismissed by judgment delivered on 27.7.2009. Even thereafter the petitioner did not file objections to the claim petition. Instead, he sought an adjournment of the claim petition alleging that he intends to move the Apex Court. That application was allowed and C.P.No.14 of 2007 was adjourned to 11.11.2009. On that day the petitioner filed yet another application for adjournment. That request was not granted. The 4th respondent herein was thereupon examined as P.W.1 and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked on the side of the employees. Though the petitioner was represented by counsel, he did not cross-examine P.W.1. By Ext.P4 order passed on 3.12.2009, the Labour Court held that in the absence of any contra evidence the workmen are entitled to succeed. C.P.No.14 of 2007 was accordingly allowed and the employees were held entitled to recover the sum of Rs.2,91,360/- each by way of arrears of wages. They were also held entitled to realise the sum of Rs.24,270.27 by way of bonus. The total W.P(C).No.6176 of 2010 -:3:- liability fastened on the petitioner was Rs.22,09,411.89. Ext.P4 is under challenge in this writ petition. The main ground of challenge is that before Ext.P4 order was passed the petitioner was not given an opportunity to file objections. It is also contended that there is no basis for the arrears of wages awarded by the Labour Court. 3. I heard Sri.V.Ramkumar Nambiar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.K.S.Madhusoodanan, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 8. I have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. It is evident from the materials on record that the claim petition on which Ext.P4 order was passed was presented by respondents 2 to 8 on 12.2.2007. Ext.P2 award was passed on 20.7.2006. It is only after the claim petition was filed that the petitioner challenged Ext.P2 award by filing W.P(C)No.26890 of 2007 in this Court. W.P (C)No.26890 of 2007 was filed only on 10.9.2007. Even before the writ petition was filed, notice of the claim petition was served on the petitioner. He could have therefore, objected to the claim made by the workmen by filing appropriate objections. He did not do so. W.P.(C)No.26890 of 2007 was dismissed by Ext.P3 W.P(C).No.6176 of 2010 -:4:- judgment delivered on 11.9.2007. At least after that he could have filed objections to C.P.No.14 of 2007. Instead he filed W.A.No.2937 of 2007. That writ appeal was dismissed on 27.7.2009. Even thereafter the petitioner did not file objections to C.P.No.14 of 2007, notwithstanding the fact that he was granted time till 11.11.2009 to file objections. As a matter of fact, the order impugned itself states in paragraph 3 thereof that C.P.No.14 of 2007 was adjourned to 11.11.2009 based on the request made by the petitioner. From the facts stated above, it is evident that the petitioner alone can be blamed for his omission to file objections to C.P.No.14 of 2007. It is also evident that the petitioner was all along adopting dilatory tactics to defeat and delay the claim of the workmen. Even if the petitioner was desirous of challenging the award in this Court he could have filed his objections to the claim made by the workmen and produced relevant materials in support of his contentions. The petitioner, who is guilty of laches and negligence, cannot therefore be heard to contend that he was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to defend C.P.No.14 of 2007. As noticed earlier, C.P.No.14 of 2007 was filed on 12.2.2007 and it was disposed of only on 23.12.2009. W.P(C).No.6176 of 2010 -:5:- I am therefore, satisfied that there is no merit in the challenge to Ext.P4. I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C).No.6176 of 2010 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 1st August, 2011