IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2008 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 19166 of 2005(F) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- USHA.B.KURUP, LAKSHMI NIKETAN, VELLAKINAR, CIVIL LINE WARD, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.KRB.KAIMAL (SR.) SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE PRESIDENT, GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD., P.C.MAVOOR, KOZHIKODE. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.N.SANTHOSH - R1 BY ADV.SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE (SR.) - R2 SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR - R2 SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR - R2 SMT.PRIYA MAHESH - R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.19166/2005 F APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE GOVT.ORDER (REFERENCE ORDER) NO. G.O.(RT) NO.572/2001/LBR DTD. 15/02/2001. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE CLAIM STATEMENT DTD. 26/09/2001 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN I.D.8/01. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DTD. 18/12/01 FILED BY THE MANAGEMENT OF GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD. BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT I;N I.D.8/01. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE REJOINDER DTD. 16/03/2002 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN I.D.8/01. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE AWARD DTD. 22/11/2004 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN I.D.NO.8/01. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.19166 OF 2005 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the workman involved in I.D.No.8 of 2001 before the Labour Court, Kozhikode. She is challenging Ext.P5 award passed by the Labour Court in that I.D. The issue referred for adjudication was legality and justifiability of termination of the petitioner workman from service who was employed as a Civil Engineer in the establishment of the 2nd respondent. The petitioner was originally terminated from service with effect from 30.10.1999. At that time she raised an industrial dispute against her termination from service. Thereafter, she was reinstated in service and later on again terminated from service with effect from 15.1.2000 by an order dated 6.3.2000. She was also a given a cheque for the entire terminal benefits and compensation payable. The petitioner encashed the cheque. Subsequently the industrial dispute raised against the termination of service on 30.10.1999 came to be referred for adjudication W.P.(c)No.19166/05 2 resulting in Ext.P5 award, whereby the Labour Court found that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief since she accepted later termination by encahsing the cheque for the terminal benefits and compensation payable to her and therefore she is estopped from questioning the impugned termination from service since the issue referred for adjudication was the termination from service with effect from 30.10.1999 Apparently, the petitioner never raised an industrial dispute in respect of the termination from service with effect from 15.1.2001, but only the termination from service dated 30.10.1999. The Labour Court held that since the termination from service dated 30.10.1999 no longer survives since the petitioner was reinstated in service and later terminated with effect from 15.1.2001 which termination from service she accepted, she is estopped form questioning the present termination from service. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently argue that whether it is termination from service dated 30.10.99 or 15.1.2000, what has been challenged is the termination from service and therefore irrespective of the date the Tribunal ought to have adjudicated the validity of the termination from service. W.P.(c)No.19166/05 3 3. The learned counsel appearing for the management would submit that the petitioner accepted the termination from service with effect from 15.1.2000 and did not question the same. At that time, the earlier complaint filed against the termination dated 30.11.99 continued to be processed unaware of the reinstatement and later termination from service, which resulted in the reference and it is only because after subsequent closure the management and unions entered into a settlement under which the remaining workers were entitled to better compensation, the petitioner has woken up and decided to prosecute the earlier dispute which in fact did not survive in view of the later termination from service with effect from 15.1.2000 and acceptance of the compensation. After hearing both sides, I am inclined to agree with the contentions of the management. Admittedly the dispute happened to be referred consequent to the complaint filed against the termination from service with effect from 30.10.99. As such, the petitioner never raised a dispute in respect of the termination from service with effect from 15.1.2000. Without raising a dispute in respect of that termination from service and since the petitioner had accepted the terminal benefits and compensation pursuant to the latter termination from service, W.P.(c)No.19166/05 4 I do not think the petitioner could have validly continue the dispute raised on the basis of the termination of service dated 30.10.99. As such I do not find any infirmity in Ext.P5 award. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd