IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2008 / 12TH MAGHA 1929 OP.No. 26048 of 2001(A) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- THE PRESIDENT, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK KARINKAL, METAL AND KEETIDANIRMANA THOZHILALI CONGRESS (INTUC), PPM FRUITS CENTRE, M.S.C. BUILDING, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. C.P.DAVID, CHAMBAKOTTUKUDIYIL, PINDIMANA. 2. LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP: BY SECRETARY TO LABOUR DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.A.V.XAVIER SRI.JOLLY JOHN R2 & 3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMARAN. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- P1: Copy of the claim statement dtd.25.2.1988 filed by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent. P2: Copy of the written statement dtd.13.6.1988 filed by the first respondent before the 2nd respondent. P3: Copy of the reply statement dtd.3.10.1988 filed by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent. P4: Copy of list of documents filed by the first respondent dtd. 15.5.1989 before the 2nd respondent. P5: Copy of petition dtd.19.2.1990 filed by the first respondent before the 2nd respondent. P6: Copy of list of document filed by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent dtd.18.12.1989. P7: Copy of witness list filed by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent dated 18.12.1989. P8: Copy of petition dtd.16.7.1990 submitted by the petitioner before 2nd respondent. P9: Copy of statement filed by the first respondent before the 2nd respondent dtd.14.8.1990. P10: Copy of translation of deposition of WW1 in ID.90/87 dtd.15.10.90. P11: Copy of translation of deposition of WW2 in ID.90/87 dtd.6.11.90. P12: Copy of translation of deposition of the first respondent in ID.90/87 dtd.11.12.90. P13: Copy of the affidavit and petition dtd.18.12.90 submitted by the 1st respondent before the 2nd respondent. P14: Copy of the seniority list published on 21.3.1986. P15: Copy of the argument notes submitted by the petitioner dtd.8.3.91. -: 2 :- P16: Copy of argument note dated Nil submitted by the first respondent before the 2nd respondent. P17: Copy of the award published on 21.1.1992 in the Gazette. P18: Copy of judgment in OP.No.8459/92 dtd.7.8.97 before this Hon'ble Court. P19: Copy of petition along with the affidavit dtd.10.8.98 filed by the first respondent before the 2nd respondent. P20: Copy of the counter affidavit filed on 11.8.99 by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent. P21: Copy of award in ID.No.90/87 published in the Gazette dtd.17.10.2000. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- Nil. ( true copy ) P.S. TO JUDGE. kvs/- C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- O.P. NO. 26048 OF 2001 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the first respondent. Petitioner, who is a labour union is challenging Ext.P21 award by which the Labour court has found that retrenchment of six employees from out of 11 for whom O.P. is filed was necessitated on account of mechanisation of the industry. Even though counsel for the petitioner contended that it is a case of victimisation, in as much as strike started first, and only on account of strike termination happened, counsel for the first respondent contended that without mechanisation industry could not be run successfully and therefore mechanisation was opted for at high cost. It is a settled position that modernisation or mechanisation for better productivity and profitability is a ground for retrenchment. The Labour Court also took the same view by following the decision of the Supreme Court. 2. The next contention raised by the petitioner is that retrenchment is not in accordance with I.D. Act in as much as last joined was not first sent. However, on going through the award, I find the Labour Court has gone through the seniority list of workers and 2 noticed that those retrenched were the juniormost in service. It is further found by the Labour Court that besides 11 persons, five whose names appeared in the claim petition were continuously absent and inspite of repeated notices, they did not respond to the management and therefore they were treated as having abandoned the employment. The Labour Court therefore rightly found that they were struck off from the list of workers, which means removal from service for unauthorised absence. Since Labour Court has upheld the retrenchment, and I do not find any ground to interfere with the finding, balance is only claim of retrenchment compensation and notice pay. While counsel for the first respondent submitted that except three, all others have accepted the payments sent through money order, petitioner's counsel denied the same. The labour court has recorded that except three all others have received retrenchment compensation. Those who have not received the compensation can still approach the management and if they approach, the amount will be paid to them, is the submission made by counsel for respondent. In these circumstances O.P. is only to be dismissed and I do so. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 3