IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2008 / 26TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 30280 of 2006(D) -------------------------- CP.63/1997 of LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------ THE PUNNALA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., PUNNALA, PIRAVANTHOOR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.K.SHIBILI NAHA RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. P.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, S/O.KUNJAN PILLAI, PUNNALA, THUNDIYIL VEEDU, PIRAVANTHOOR, PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM. 3. DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, KOLLAM. 4. TAHSILDAR (R.R.), TALUK OFFICE, PATHANAPURAM. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, (LABOUR DEPARTMENT), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) SRI.K.V.VINODKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.1.2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C).No. 30280/06. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF THE RR.NOTICE DTD.28.10.06 BY R4. P2. COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DTD.21.8.05. P3. COPY OF THE ORDER BY R2 DTD.14.9.04. P4. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO.240/91. P5. COPY OF THE AUDIT CERTIFICATE FOR THE YEAR 04-05. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.30280 of 2006 ================== Dated this the 16th day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a co-operative society. It was the management in C.P.No.63/97 before the Labour Court, Kollam, filed by the 1st respondent herein, claiming arrears of wages, leave salary, bonus etc. Arrears of wages were claimed on the basis of a Government order dated 9.6.1992, which directed all primary co-operative societies to implement scales of pay for its employees with effect from 1.4.1989. The 1st respondent claimed arrears of wages in accordance with the said Government order for the period from 1.5.1991 to 30.6.1994, during which time, admittedly, the 1st respondent was in service. The Labour Court ultimately found that the 1st respondent is entitled to Rs.80,601/- as arrears of wages in terms of the Government order. But the other claims were rejected. Ext.P3 order passed in that C.P. is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. Two contentions are raised before me by the petitioner. First is that the Labour Court could not have validly w.p.c.30280/06 2 entertained the claim petition under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, since the rights of the 1st respondent had not been adjudicated by a competent authority, which is essential for invoking jurisdiction under that provision. The second is that the 1st respondent was actually employed by the society on a consolidated pay of Rs.500/- per month and the workman never raised any claim for fixation of pay in accordance with the Government order without which he cannot claim arrears of wages on the basis of the Government order. They would further submit that, in view of the difficult financial situation of the society, as provided in the Government Order itself, the petitioner society was exempted from implementation of the Government order and therefore, the 1st respondent was not entitled to claim benefits of that Government order. It is their further contention that in respect of other employees, the Government order was implemented only in 1999. 3. All these contentions are stoutly opposed by the counsel for the 1st respondent. He would submit that once the existence of the Government order is admitted, then the 1st respondent has become eligible for benefits of the Government w.p.c.30280/06 3 order and no adjudication is necessary for enabling him to claim benefits of the same and the Labour Court can, in exercise of powers under Section 33C(2), calculate the amounts due to the 1st respondent in terms of money by applying the Government order. Therefore, the claim petition under Section 33C(2) is perfectly maintainable, is the contention. Regarding the second contention, the counsel for the 1st respondent would submit that for getting exemption from the purview of the Government order, as provided in the Government order itself, the petitioner society ought to have applied for exemption from implementation of the Government order, which admittedly the petitioner has not done, which is evident from the fact that the society itself admitted that the Government order has been implemented in respect of employees of the society in 1999. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. I am not impressed by the first contention of the petitioner at all. Here is a Government order whereby all primary societies in the State have been directed to implement the scales of pay as stipulated in the Government order. Admittedly, the 1st respondent was in service as secretary of the society during the w.p.c.30280/06 4 relevant period for which the Government Order was made applicable. Scale of pay of the secretary is mentioned in the Government order. Then the benefits due to the 1st respondent emanating from the Government order can be computed merely by an arithmetical calculation, which is exactly what is contemplated under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and has been done by the Labour court in this case. As such, no separate adjudication is necessary and therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the claim in the absence of an award or settlement is clearly unsustainable. Therefore, on this point, I find against the petitioner and in favour of the 1st respondent. 6. Regarding the second point, the petitioner does not dispute the fact that the society has not applied for exemption from the purview of the Government order. Of course, the counsel for the petitioner would try to convince me that, in view of Ext.P5 audit memorandum it is very clear that the society is running at a loss and therefore, in view of the financial difficulties the society was entitled to such exemption. I am of opinion that merely because the society is running at a loss, the petitioner w.p.c.30280/06 5 cannot disclaim the liability to pay salary in accordance with the Government order without applying to the Registrar of Co- operative Societies for exemption from implementing the Government order, which admittedly the petitioner has not done. On the other hand, in the writ petition the petitioner had admitted that the petitioner society had started paying benefits to the employees as per the Government order in 1999. They do not specifically state as to whether in 1999 pay was fixed with effect from the date prescribed in the notification or not. No such contention was raised before the Labour Court also. Therefore, such a contention at this point of time cannot be countenanced. Therefore, there is no merit in the second contention also. In the above view, this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE