IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 26TH APRIL 2011 / 6TH VAISAKHA 1933 OP(LC).No. 1556 of 2011(O) -------------------------- CP.5/2010 of LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER :- ----------------------- K.V.ABDURAHIMAN, S/O BEERAN KOYA HAJI, KARUVEETIL HOUSE, FEROKE P.O., KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF RESPONDENT(S) :- ------------------------- 1. PRASANNA C., W/O LATE C.BALAKRISHNAN, CHELAKKAL HOUSE, 'CHAITRAM', EDACHIRA, KADALUNDI-673 302. 2. PRAJOSH.C, S/O LATE C.BALAKRISHNAN, CHELAKKAL HOUSE, 'CHAITRAM', EDACHIRA, KADALUNDI-673 302. 3. PRAJULA.C., D/O LATE C.BALAKRISHNAN, CHELAKKAL HOUSE, 'CHAITRAM', EDACHIRA, KADALUNDI-673 302. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.C.M.NAZAR THIS OP (LABOUR COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jvt THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ O.P.(LC). No.1556 of 2011 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 26th day of April 2011 J U D G M E N T With petitioner as a party in I.D.No.30 of 1997, the Labour Court, Kozhikode passed an award which is to the effect that petitioner illegally terminated the service of one Balakrishnan who was employed as Conductor in his bus. Petitioner challenged that award in O.P.No.22413 of 2001 in this Court but, that original petition was dismissed for default. While so, the said Balakrishnan died. Respondents 1 to 3, claiming to be his legal heirs filed Ext.P2, claim petition before the Labour Court claiming right over the amount due to said Balakrishnan as per award in I.D.No.30 of 1997. Petitioner filed his objection to Ext.P2. Respondents 1 to 3 filed Ext.P3, rejoinder. Grievance of petitioner is that notwithstanding that the Labour Court has no authority to entertain Ext.P2, claim petition, it is O.P.(LC). No.1556 of 2011 -: 2 :- proceeding to dispose of the said petition. Learned counsel submits that Ext.P2, claim petition is not maintainable under Sec.33(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short, “the Act”). It is also submitted that since the issue relates to lack of jurisdiction, this Court can interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution. According to me, it is for the Labour Court which is to decide on Ext.P2, claim petition preferred by respondents 1 to 3, including its maintainability if objected by petitioner. It is not as if this Court is to intervene at this stage and decide at the first instance whether Ext.P2, claim petition is maintainable before the Labour Court and whether the Labour Court has power to grant relief prayed for in the said petition. The Labour Court to decide that question at the first instance and if the order is adverse to the petitioner, he has to challenge that order as provided under law. I do not find reason to entertain this petition invoking Article 227 of the Constitution but it is made clear that if otherwise entitled, it O.P.(LC). No.1556 of 2011 -: 3 :- is open to the petitioner to raise his objection regarding maintainability of Ext.P2, claim petition before the Labour Court and in case any such objection is raised, the Labour Court shall decide that question as well. Original petition is disposed of as above. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. Jvt