IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2008 / 26TH ASHADHA 1930 OP.No. 4045 of 2003(F) ---------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ TRANSFORERS AND ELECTRICALS KERALA LIMITED ANGAMALLY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI (SR.) SRI.SAJI VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. K.T.GEORGE, SENIOR SERGEANT, TELK ANGAMALY. 2. K.K.BALAKRISHNAN, SURGEANT, TELK ANGAMALLY 3. A.PAULO, SENIOR HEAD GUARD, TELK ANGAMALLY. 4. VARGHESE YOHAMNNAN, HEAD GUARD, TELK, ANGAMALLY. 5. M.V.ARAVINDAN, HEAD GUARD, TELK ANGAMALLY. 6. A.N.MOHAMMED, HEAD GUARD, TELK ANGAMALLY. 7. P.V.CHACKO, HEAD GUARD, TELK ANGAMALLY. 8. S.NARAYANAN, HEAD GUARD, TELK ANGAMALLY. 9. K.J.PAPPACHAN, HEAD GUARD, TELK ANGAMALLY. 10. B.S.MOHAMMED, HEAD GUARD, TELK ANGAMALLY. 11. K.R.VIDYADHARAN, HEAD GUARD, TELK ANGAMALLY. OP NO.4045/2003 12. P.SUKUMARAN, SECURITY GUARD, TELK ANGAMALLY. 13. K.C.CHACKO, SECURITY GUARD, TELK ANGAMALLY. BY ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR FOR R1TO13 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP NO.4045/2003 ORDER ON CMP NO.7055/2003 IN OP NO.4045/2003 DISMISSED. 17/07/2008 SD/- (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) APPENDIX P1 : COPY OF JUDGMENT OF HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 09/10/1990 IN OP NO.722/1986. P2 : COPY OF ORDER DATED 27/08/2002 OF THE LABOUR COURT ERNAKULAM IN CLAIM PETITION NO.37/94. P3 : COPY OF NOTICE OF THE PETITIONER PLACED ON THE NOTICE BOARD. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ---------------------- O.P.No. 4045 of 2003 ------------------------------------ Dated, this the 17th day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a Government of Kerala company, which is declared as sick industry. Respondents are some of the security staff engaged by petitioner in their factory. Respondents approached the Labour Court, Ernakulam claiming that they were not given lunch break from 1980 onwards and consequently they are entitled to double the wages for ½ an our of lunch break denied to them for 14 years i.e. from 1980 to 1994, when the claim petition was filed. Petitioner’s case is that the security staff though engaged on 8 hours shift and were not given a specified period of break for lunch, there were informal arrangement for each and every one to take lunch on a turn basis, so that security in the factory is not affected. Contention of the respondents is that since they were not given lunch break, they are entitled to payment for the work done during period of lunch break. The Labour Court after taking evidence passed the impugned order, namely Ext.P2, directing petitioner to pay double the wages for ½ an hour for the days worked by the respondents for the last 14 years. It is against O.P.No.4045/2003 -2- this order, petitioner approached this Court with the original petition. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that same claim was made by another 25 security persons in the year 1984 and the same was rejected by the Labour Court. However, according to the respondents' counsel, this Court has remanded the matter in 2007. In any case, respondents have not filed claim petition for wages in a representative capacity and obviously, the remaining security guards who are in the same position as respondents have not yet been paid any additional wages for the lunch break for the period during which they were on duty. Petitioner does not deny the entitlement of ½ an hour lunch break for security persons including the respondents. Respondent’s case is that they skipped lunch during the last 14 years and worked uninterruptedly. However, there is no explanation as to why they delayed filing claim petition by 14 years. It is seen from Ext.P3 that an arrangement was made in the year 1993, whereunder security persons were given lunch break in a staggered manner so that they take break on a turn basis without affecting security duty. O.P.No.4045/2003 -3- Argument of the respondents that they have not taken lunch for 14 years is something which is unbelievable. Obviously, without any official orders or formal arrangement, security staff by turn took time for lunch and is managing the security of the company without interruption. In fact, Ext.P3 is an arrangement of this nature later made in a formal and official manner. In the circumstances, I am of the view that if respondents had made the claim within a reasonable time, then petitioner would have got an opportunity to make arrangements for fixing time for lunch break in the manner, it was done in the year 1993. I am of the view that delay alone will defeat the claim of respondents irrespective of the merit of the claim. If respondents had raised the issue in 1980 itself, then the petitioner would have provided lunch break in a staggered manner as was done now. After denying this opportunity to petitioner, respondents cannot go to the Labour Court and claim loaded wage arrears for 14 years. I find no justification for the Labour Court to award the claim to respondents. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed quashing Ext.P2 award of the Labour Court. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) jg