IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2008 / 17TH POUSHA 1929 RP.No. 1269 of 2007(G) ---------------------- REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN W.P.(C). --------------------------------------------------------- SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LTD., HAVING ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AT MOOKAMBIKA COMPLEX, NO. 4, LADY DESHIKACHERI ROAD, MYLAPORE, CHENNAI AND BRANCH OFFICE AT SREEPADAM BUILDING, CHEROOTTY ROAD, KOZHIKODE REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY SIBY JOHN. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS IN W.P.(C). ------------------------------------ 1. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, 3RD CIRCLE, KOZHIKODE. 2. DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, KOZHIKODE. 3. GAYATHRI, W/O. MANOJ KUMAR, PUNAPUNATHIL HOUSE, MALAPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE. R1 & R2 BY G.P. SHRI.T.T.MUHAMOOD. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ====================== R.P.No.1269/2007 in W.P(C).No.24215/2007 ====================== Dated this the 7th day of January, 2008 O R D E R This review petition is directed against my judgment dated 8.8.2007. The petitioner filed writ appeal against that judgment, in which he appears to have urged certain contentions which were not raised at the time of hearing of the writ petition. Accordingly, reserving his right to file a review petition, the Division Bench disposed of the matter. It is pursuant to that the petitioner has filed this review petition. 2. The writ petition is against the order of the Authority under the Maternity Benefit Act, directing reinstatement of the employee concerned with full back wages. The petitioner raised two contentions. First is that the Authority under the Act does not have power to order reinstatement as in the case of powers of the Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act and those of the Appellate Authority under Section 18 of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act and therefore, the direction to reinstate the r.p.1269/07 2 employee concerned is without jurisdiction. The second is that the Authority ought not to have ordered payment of full back wages. 3. I have heard the parties. 4. The power of the 1st respondent who is the original authority under the Maternity Benefit Act is traceable to Section 17 of the Maternity Benefit Act, which reads as follows: “17. Power of Inspector to direct payments to be made:- (1) Any woman claiming that - (a) Maternity benefit or any other amount to which she is entitled under this Act and any person claiming that payment due under Section 7 has been improperly withheld; (b) her employer has discharged or dismissed her during or on account of her absence from work in accordance with the provision of this Act, may make a complaint to the Inspector. (2) The Inspector may, of his own motion or on receipt of a complaint referred to in sub-section (1), make an inquiry to be made and if satisfied that - (a) payment has been wrongfully withheld, may direct the payment to be made in accordance with his orders. (b) she has been discharged or dismissed during or on account of her absence from work in accordance with the provisions of this Act, may pass such orders as are just and proper according to the circumstances of the case. (3) Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Inspector under sub-section (2) may, within 30 days from the date on which such decision is communicated to such person, appeal to the prescribed authority. r.p.1269/07 3 (4) The decision of the prescribed authority where an appeal has been preferred to it under sub-section (3) or of the Inspector where no such appeal has been preferred, shall be final. (5) Any amount payable under this section shall be recoverable by the Collector on a certificate issued for that amount by the Inspector as an arrear of land revenue.” (Underling supplied) I am of the opinion that the said Section is wider than either Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act or Section 18 of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act. The Section is couched in very wide terms giving powers to the Inspector to pass any orders which are just and proper in the circumstances of the case. Therefore, if the complaint of the employee is found genuine, the Inspector would have the powers to order reinstatement also. As such, I do not find any merit in that contention. Regarding back wages, it is the discretion of the authorities concerned or this court to direct payment of either full or part of the backwages. The petitioner is a recalcitrant employer who embarked on two rounds of litigation before the authorities and a writ petition to deny the employee not only maternity benefit but also employment, which litigation the employee could ill afford. As is clear from the impugned orders, r.p.1269/07 4 the employer himself was at fault, which has been upheld by me in the judgment. Therefore, I do not find any impropriety in directing reinstatement of the employee with full back wages. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the review petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge.