IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2008 / 11TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 33223 of 2004(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ JOSEPH THOMAS, KOLLARATH HOUSE, PARAVATTANI, TRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R), TRISSUR. 2. M.THOMAS, VALLEY VIEW ESTATE, VELLANIKKARA P.O., TRISSUR. 3. GEORGE ANTONY, S/O. ANTONY SOUTHIL, INGAL BE LAKE ROAD, KODAIKANAT-624 101,TAMIL NADU. R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.P. PRADEEP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/01/2008, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 17719 OF 2005 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX(WPC 33223/04) PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 2794 OF 1993 OF OLLUKARA SUB REGISTRY EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER BY 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 28.8.93 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO. 3664 OF 1984 OF OLLUKARA SRO EXECUTED BY ANNAMMA ANTONY DATED 31.3.84 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR IMPLEADING DATED 19.3.1996 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3.5.2000 IN COP 48 OF 1992 OF LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF MP NO. 76/2004 IN CP 48/92 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE RR ACT DATED 28.10.2004 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------------------------ W.P.C. NO. 33223/2004 & 17719/2005 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT Heard counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as counsel appearing for common respondent-claimant, in whose favour awards are passed. The challenge in W.P.C.No. 33223 of 2004 is against the award passed by the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act granting arrears of wages and other benefits to the claimant, who is second respondent in the said Writ Petition. It is seen from the award that the amount claimed is difference in wages payable to the employee for two years, 1992 and 1993 based on settlement and in terms of the revised minimum wages payable under the Act. The contention raised by the management is that the claimant was not supervisor. However, it is seen from the award that the management has conceded that the claimant was a writer in the estate. I do not think the designation of the employee makes any difference so far as his entitlement for arrears of wages is concerned, because both supervisor as well as writer answer the description of "workman" under the I.D. Act. Even though 2 counsel for the petitioner contended that it is an exparte award as against him, I do not find any justification to order reconsideration because the matter was contested by the original employer and the Labour Court has decided the matter on merits. Moreover, the entire amount is deposited before the CJM Court in execution proceedings under orders of this Court. It is seen that even though the claim related to the period 1992 and 1993 the award is passed without granting any interest to the claimant. The award itself was passed more than 7-1/2 years back. In the circumstances, and since the claimant's entitlement is proved beyond doubt through evidence, W.P. is dismissed directing the CJM to release the payment to the second respondent immediately on production of a copy of this judgment. 2. The challenge in W.P.C.No. 17719 of 2005 is against the award of Rs. 5166.35 towards arrears of wages payable to the first respondent in the said Writ Petition. Even though copy of the award is not produced in Court it is conceded that the amount awarded is arrears of wages claimed by the first respondent. In the connected W.P., W.P.C.No. 33223 of 2004, this Court upheld the award of the Labour 3 court towards arrears of difference in wages and other benefits to the same claimant. This is also a claim by the very same employee in respect of the very same employment under the same employer. Petitioners are purchasers of estate and in the proceedings before the Labour Court, the original employer did not contest liability at all. The entire amount is also deposited before the CJM Court. In the circumstances, this W.P.C. is dismissed with further direction to the CJM to release the amount to the claimant immediately on production of a copy of this judgment. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge 4