IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 21ST JUNE 2011 / 31ST JYAISHTA 1933 OP(LC).No. 1940 of 2011(O) -------------------------- CP.33/2005 of LABOUR COURT, KANNUR .................... PETITIONER: -------------------- P.V.ABDUL SHUKKOOR, MANAGING PARTNER, PEEVEES ENTERPRISES, PAYANGADI, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.B.PREMNATH (E) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- V.RAJEEVAN, NADAKKAL HOUSE, KANNAPURAM P.O., MOTTAMMAL, KANNUR. PIN 670 017 THIS OP (LABOUR COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(LC)No.1940/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. TRUE COPY OF C.P.33/2005 BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT, KANNUR EXT.P2. TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN CP 33/2005 EXT.P3. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CP NO.33/2005 DATED 8.7.2009 EXT.P4. TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE OF DR.P.V.ABDUL RAHMAN, DATED 25.3.2011. / TRUE COPY / P.S.TO JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- O.P(LC).No.1940 of 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st June, 2011 JUDGMENT Ext.P3 order passed by the Labour Court, Kannur on 8.7.2009 in Claim Petition No.33 of 2005 filed by the respondent herein under section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The respondent was an employee of the petitioner during the period from 1.1.1998 to 5.3.2001. On 5.3.2001 the respondent was denied employment. He thereupon raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court, Kannur as I.D.No.15 of 2001. By award passed some time in the year 2003, after notice to the petitioner herein, the Labour Court directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent in service with full backwages and continuity of service. The said award has attained finality. The respondent thereafter filed Claim Petition No.33 of 2005 under section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in the Labour Court claiming the sum of Rs.1,79,993.34 by way of arrears of salary and allowances. The petitioner received O.P(LC).No.1940 of 2011 -:2:- notice of the claim petition. He entered appearance and filed Ext.P2 counter statement dated 17.5.2006. The principal contention raised therein was that though pursuant to the award passed in I.D.No.15 of 2001 the petitioner was willing to reinstate the respondent in service, the respondent was employed elsewhere and did not join duty and therefore there is no merit or bonafides in the claim now made. In paragraph 4 of Ext.P2 counter statement it was also stated that the respondent did not join duty in spite of service of a registered notice on him. Though such a contention was raised in Ext.P2 counter statement the petitioner did not participate in the proceedings before the Labour Court and he was set ex parte on 24.6.2009. It was thereafter that Ext.P3 order was passed directing the petitioner to pay the sum of Rs.1,79,993/-. Though in this writ petition also a contention similar to the one raised in paragraph 4 of Ext.P2 counter statement is raised and the petitioner has averred that the respondent was not willing to join duty in spite of service of a registered notice, a copy of the notice has not been produced. The date on which the notice was issued is also not stated. The petitioner has also stated that he was under treatment for O.P(LC).No.1940 of 2011 -:3:- Rheumatic Arthritis and therefore he could not appear before the Labour Court and contest the case properly. Reliance is placed on Ext.P4 medical certificate dated 25.3.2011 to substantiate the said contention. It is also stated that though after Ext.P3 order was passed the petitioner's counsel had informed him of the same, he could not, on account of his illness, contact the counsel or make arrangements to apply for a certified copy of Ext.P3 order and that after his illness subsided he contacted his counsel at Kannur and applied for a copy of Ext.P3 order. On these grounds the petitioner has also attempted to explain the long delay in challenging Ext.P3. 3. The petitioner is aged 49 years. Ext.P4 certificate is issued by a Pediatrician. Ext.P4 states that the petitioner was under treatment for Rheumatic Arthritis for nearly 20 months during the period from 5.6.2009 to 25.3.2011. The petitioner has no case that he was totally bedridden. The petitioner was set ex parte by the Labour Court on 24.6.2009. Ext.P3 order was passed thereafter on 8.7.2009. It is evident from the attendant circumstances that Ext.P4 certificate has been obtained by the petitioner for the sole purpose of making it appear that he could O.P(LC).No.1940 of 2011 -:4:- not attend the hearing held on 24.6.2009 on account of his illness. The explanation offered by the petitioner for not appearing before the Labour Court on 24.6.2009 does not in my opinion inspire confidence. The petitioner has in paragraph 6 of the writ petition virtually admitted the fact that he was informed of the passing of Ext.P3 order by his counsel in time. His explanation is that as he could not move about, he could not contact his counsel and make arrangements to apply for a certified copy of Ext.P3 order. It is too late in the day to contend in this age of speedy communication that the petitioner had no means of contacting his counsel for instructing him to apply for a certified copy of Ext.P3 order. Though he had stated that after his illness subsided he contacted his counsel at Kannur and applied for a copy of Ext.P3 order, the date on which he contacted the counsel or the date on which he had applied for a copy of Ext.P3 order are not forthcoming. If Ext.P3 is the photostat copy of the certified copy of the order thus applied for and obtained by the petitioner, it should certainly show the date on which it was issued. The endorsements in that regard are not available in the copy of Ext.P3 produced. Such being the situation I am not persuaded to accept the explanation offered by O.P(LC).No.1940 of 2011 -:5:- the petitioner that he could make arrangements to apply for a certified copy of Ext.P3 order only after his illness subsided. I therefore find no grounds to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is dismissed in limine. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- O.P(LC).No.1940 of 2011 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 21st June, 2011