IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2008 / 28TH POUSHA 1929 OP.No. 12983 of 2003(U) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ A..T.RAMACHANDRAN,T.NO. 17, PAROKKUNNUMMAL VEEDU, P.O.KARAD PARAMBA. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------- 1. THE LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE. 2. M/S. FAROKE PLYWOODS PRIVATE LIMITED, P.O. KARAD PARAMBA, VIA. FAROOK COLLEGE, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADR SRI. T.T. MAHMOOD THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 12983 of 2003 ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.22083/2003 IN O.P. NO.12983/03 DISMISSED. 18.1.2008 SD/- S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE. APPENDIX EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 28.9.2001 IN C.P.NO.31/98. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED ALONG WITH THE C.P.NO.31/98 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ O.P. No.12983 OF 2003 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioners in C.P. No.31/98 before the Labour Court, Kozhikode are the petitioners in this original petition. They are challenging Ext.P1 order of the Labour Court in that C.P., wherein their Claim Petition was dismissed on the ground that no materials necessary for calculating the amounts due to the petitioners have been supplied by the petitioners and therefore the Labour Court is not in a position to calculate the amounts due. According to them, they had filed a statement giving the details and the Labour Court ought to have calculated the amounts due based on those details. 2. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. The Labour Court has considered the matter in the following words in paragraph 4 of Ext.P1 order: “Point No.I: No evidence from any side was adduced. Both sides have submitted their arguments. It is the case of the applicants that O.P.No.12983/2003 2 they are entitled to get difference in D.A. A consideration of the statement attached to the application would show that their claim is that they are entitled to the balance amount in D.A. From 1.1.1992 to 31.12.1992, from 1.1.1993 to 31.12.1993, from 1.1.1994 to 31.12.1994 and from 1.1.1995 to 28.9.1995. How many days in a month they have worked, how many, days they were absent, and how many days they were on leave but not entitled for wages are not mentioned in the statement. Instead a rough calculation and a consolidated amount said to be balance, is shown. How the balance is calculated, therefore, is unknown. It is significant to note that there is a contention from the side of the respondent that had the calculation been made properly and on the basis of real facts, the amount due for the period shown will be less than half of the amount now claimed. From the statement given it appears that the contention of the respondent is having some force, because instead of specifying the exact amounts of arrears allegedly due in each month, the applicants have roughly calculated and stated a consolidated amount said to be due, to them, for several months as per the statement filed. In my view, it is impossible to compute on the basis of such a statement as to what is the amount actually due if any to the applicants by way of difference in the D.A. That apart, what is the cost of living index in Calicut District and what is the cost of living index in Malappuram District also has not been brought out by the applicants. On that score also it is impossible to compute the amount if any due to them. They have in fact not stated in the statement as to what is the amount they were paid and as to what O.P.No.12983/2003 3 the amount they ought to have been paid. Thus the statement is vague and it does not clearly indicate as to what is the amount if any, actually due to them by way of difference in D.A. Under this circumstances, I hold that it is impossible to compute the same based on the statement given here. I, therefore, hold that the claim made in the application cannot be allowed as such”. The petitioners could not satisfy me that they had in fact supplied information necessary for calculation of amounts due to them. That being so, I do not find anything wrong with Ext.P1 order. Therefore, this original petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd O.P.No.12983/2003 4