IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2011 / 24TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 3137 of 2007(W) -------------------------------------- CP.NO. 52/1998 of LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ LOURDES CHURCH KURI OFFICE, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICAR. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN SRI.A.JAYASANKAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-18. 2. C.R.JOSE, 6/76, CHELAPPADAN HOUSE, LOURDE PURAM, THRISSUR-680 005. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.3137/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE AWARD-DATED 26/11/97 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN ID NO.79/93 P2 COPY OF THE EXECUTION PETITION DATED 23/6/98 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P3 COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 16/3/99 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN CP 52/98. P4 COPY OF THE REPLICATION DATED 20/12/99 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P5 COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN CP NO.52/98. P6 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27/9/06 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.3137 OF 2007 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT The management in C.P.No.52/98 is challenging Ext.P6 order of the Labour Court, Ernakulam under Section 33C (2)of the Industrial Disputes Act, whereby certain amounts purported to be amounts due from the petitioner management to the 2nd respondent in execution of Ext.P1 award in I.D.No.79/93 was directed to be paid by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent was a workman of the petitioner management. He was dismissed from service on certain allegations of misconduct. The 2nd respondent raised an industrial dispute in which by Ext.P1 award, while upholding the guilt of the 2nd respondent, the punishment was directed to be converted into one of discharge instead of dismissal. Retirement benefits due to the 2nd respondent were directed to be paid within 60 days failing which interest at the rate of 12% was directed to be given. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner paid gratuity due to the 2nd W.P.(C)No.3137/07 2 respondent. Thereafter the 2nd respondent filed Ext.P2 claim petition under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming arrears of wages and other benefits up to the date of his superannuation on the ground that once the dismissal is converted into one of discharge, the 2nd respondent is presumed to have been continued in service till date of superannuation. Subsequent to the dismissal of the 2nd respondent, there was wage revision of employees of the management and the 2nd respondent sought arrears of revision of wages as if he had continued in service till the age of superannuation. Such claim of the 2nd respondent was allowed by the Labour Court. According to the petitioner, this is a perverse view taken by the Labour Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that once the punishment of dismissal is converted into one of discharge the 2nd respondent is deemed to have been discharge from service from the date of dismissal and therefore, the 2nd respondent is not entitled to any benefits for the period subsequent to the date of dismissal which is the same as the date of discharge pursuant to the award in the I.D. 2. I have considered the contentions of the parties. I W.P.(C)No.3137/07 3 am inclined to agree with the petitioner. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, once the punishment of dismissal is converted into one of discharge the 2nd respondent is deemed to have been discharged from service from the date of the dismissal and not from the date of superannuation. Therefore, the 2nd respondent’s claim on the basis that he should be deemed to have been continued in service till the date of superannuation is clearly unsustainable. I am of opinion that the Labour Court has misdirected himself in granting the benefits claimed by the 2nd respondent. In the above circumstances, Ext.P6 order is quashed and the C.P. is dismissed. The writ petition is allowed as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.3137/07 4 W.P.(C)No.3137/07 5