IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2011 / 23RD POUSHA 1932 RSA.NO. 1330 OF 2010() ---------------------- {IN A.S.NO.12/2009 OF THE DISTRICT COURT,THODUPUZHA IN O.S.NO.4/2007 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, DEVICOLAM} .................... APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF: --------------------------------------------- TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED, (FORMERLY TATA TEA LIMITED), REGISTERED OFFICE AT 1, BISHOP LEFROY ROAD, CALCUTTA WITH SPECIAL PROJECT OFFICE AT GENERAL HOSPITAL COMPLEX, MUNNAR, KDH VILLAGE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER-IR, LEGAL & ADMINISTRATION MR.PRATAP RAMDAS. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS SRI.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHAN SRI.BINU MATHEW SRI.TERRY V.JAMES SRI.B.J.JOHN PRAKASH SRI.TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL) RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT: ------------------------------------------------- KURIAN, S/O.ANTHAPPAN, PF NO.7691, RESIDING AT BUILDING NO.MP VII/120, NEAR LADBROKE BUNGLOW, MUNNAR, KDH VILLAGE, PIN-685612. R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. --------------------------------------- R.S.A.No.1330 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Concurrent decision rendered by the two courts below declining the suit claim for recovery, is challenged in this appeal by the plaintiff. 2. Plaintiff is a public limited company. The defendant, an employee of the plaintiff working as a cook was put in occupation of one of the quarters belonging to the plaintiff company. Some of the assets of the plaintiff company, it is alleged, had been taken over by another company viz., KDHP Company Private Limited, and on such taking over with effect from 1.7.2005, according to the plaintiff, the defendant also became an employee of that company. Though directions were given to the defendant to report before the Estate Manager of the KDHP Company Private Limited, he did not do so, and, later, the plaintiff R.S.A.No.1330 of 2010 :: 2 :: withdrew the permission granted to him to occupy its building, but, still he continues to have unlawful occupation, was the case of the plaintiff to seek recovery of possession of the building and a perpetual prohibitory injunction as against the defendant from interfering with its enjoyment and possession of the building, after his eviction. 3. Resisting the suit claim of the plaintiff, the defendant contended that the Tata Tea Company Limited and KDHP Company Private Limited are playing hide and seek and acting collusively to defeat the interests of the workmen including the defendant. He contended that he is not an employee of the KDHP Company Private Limited and is still working under the Tata Tea Company Limited, the plaintiff. It was his further case that a labour dispute with respect to his termination from service is pending before the R.S.A.No.1330 of 2010 :: 3 :: competent authority after raising of an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act. 4. On the materials placed which consisted of PW.1 and Exts.A1 to A7 for the plaintiff and DW.1 and Exts.B1 to B3 for the defendant and third party exhibits as Exts.X1 and X2, and taking note Rule 63(4) of the Kerala Plantations Labour Rules, 1959 (for short 'the Rules'}, which enable a worker to have continuity of his accommodation in the quarters allotted by his employer, a plantation company, where his discharge or dismissal has resulted in an industrial dispute and is pending for consideration before the competent forum, the trial court held that the plaintiff is not entitled to the reliefs canvassed in the suit and accordingly the suit claims were negatived, but, with a prohibition against the defendants from inducting any third party in the quarters. R.S.A.No.1330 of 2010 :: 4 :: 5. As against the decree so passed, impeaching its correctness and legality, the plaintiff company preferred an appeal. The lower appellate court, after re-appreciating the materials, concurring with the conclusion formed by the trial court, dismissed such appeal. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff company has preferred this appeal. 6. Notice on admission given, the respondent has entered appearance through counsel. I heard the counsel on both sides. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant, referring to a judgment dated 13.1.2008 in R.S.A.No.406/07 rendered by this court, projected an argument that Rule 63(2) of the Rules does not bar the jurisdiction of the civil court either expressly or impliedly and at best, such rule would only envisage an alternative measure for getting back possession of the R.S.A.No.1330 of 2010 :: 5 :: building allotted to the employee. It is also further urged by the counsel that some documents produced, including the lease deed relating to the building occupied by the defendant produced with a petition for reception of additional evidence before the lower appellate court were not taken into consideration by that court and that has resulted in miscarriage of justice. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant contended that the appeal does not involve any question of law, leave alone any substantial question of law, and having regard to the interdiction covered under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is not entertainable. 9. Going though Rule 63 of the Rules, with reference to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant company, placing emphasis on R.S.A.No.1330 of 2010 :: 6 :: sub-rule (2) thereof, to contend that the suit filed before the civil court for eviction of the defendant is only an alternate measure and as such court has jurisdiction to decide the dispute thereof, I find, the question of jurisdiction over the dispute canvassed is of limited significance in the present case. Clause (4) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 63 states that where a worker is discharged or dismissed and if an industrial dispute relating to such discharge or dismissal is pending and not disposed of, he is entitled to retain the occupation of the building allotted to him by his employer. Admittedly, in the present case, there is an industrial dispute over the termination of the defendant from service, whether such termination order was passed by the plaintiff company or KDHP Company Private Limited. In the industrial dispute pending, it is yet to be determined whether the defendant continued as a R.S.A.No.1330 of 2010 :: 7 :: workman of the plaintiff company which is his case to resist the eviction. Such being the fact situation presented in the case, I do not find any impropriety, leave alone any illegality in the conclusion formed by the courts below that the plaintiff company is not entitled to get eviction of the defendant from the building, limiting the relief that the defendant shall not induct any third party nor make any constructions or improvements in the building. Appeal lacks merit, and it is dismissed. Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/- //true copy// P.S. to Judge.