IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2011 / 14TH CHAITHRA 1933 WA.No. 456 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN IA.11021/10 IN WPC.16375/2010 AND IA.4861 OF 2011 IN I.A.11021 OF 2010 IN WP(C).NO.16375/10 .................... APPELLANT(S): -------------- S.SUJA SHAJILAL, PROPRIETOR, PONNU FOOD PRODUCTS, AILARA.P.O., ANCHAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.A.D.SHAJAN SRI.S.SHARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LABOUR DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM - 691 001. 3. THE SECRETARY, VANIJYA VYAVASAYA MAZDOOR SANGH, B.M.S UNION, PUNALUR, KOLLAM-691 305. 4. B.PADMAKARAN NAIR (WORKMAN), MEMBER OF THE VANIJYA VYAVASAYA MAZDOOR SANGH, B.M.S.UNION, PUNALUR, KOLLAM-691 305. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEENA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J. CHELAMESWAR, C.J & P.R.RAMACHANDRAN MENON, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.A.No. 456 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of April, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon, J. This appeal has been preferred challenging the order dated 28.2.2011 passed by a learned Single Judge in I.A.No.11021 of 2010, whereby the application preferred by the worker under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been allowed and the order dated 21.3.2011 in I.A.No.4861 of 2011, whereby the said I.A seeking to modify the former order has been dismissed. 2. The factual position as narrated in the Writ Appeal shows that an Award was passed by the Labour Court, Kollam in I.D.No.17 of 2009, whereby the 4th respondent was ordered to be reinstated in service with the benefits flowing therefrom which is challenged by the appellant by filing WP(C).No.16375 of 2010. In the course of the proceedings, the fourth respondent-worker entered appearance and filed I.A.No.11021 of 2010 seeking a direction to the Management to comply with the mandate under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The matter was considered and as per order dated 28.2.2011, the learned Single Judge directed payment of the last drawn to the fourth respondent-worker, at the rate of Rs.2,750/- per WA.456/11 2 mensem from 27.5.2010 onwards. Subsequently, I.A.No.4861 of 2011 was filed by the appellant to vary/modify the said order. After considering the materials on record, it was noted by the learned Single Judge that absolutely no material was produced before the Court to sustain the relief sought for in the application, despite a vague averment that the fourth respondent was having employment elsewhere. In such circumstances, the I.A was dismissed as per order dated 21.3.2011. The appellant is challenging the above two orders in this Writ Appeal. 3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant is repeating the very same submissions that have been taken note of by the learned Single Judge. Obviously, no material was produced to substantiate the alleged employment of the worker concerned. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant did not get sufficient time to get the necessary documents and to produce the same before the learned Single Judge. The same position continues before this Court as well in so far as the appellant has not obtained or produced any document to prove the employment of the worker and to get absolved from the liability to satisfy the mandate under Section 17- B of the Industrial Disputes Act. Going by the materials on record, we find that the impugned orders have been passed by the learned Single Judge in tune with the statutory requirements and in the light of the WA.456/11 3 available materials. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the learned Single Judge. The Writ Appeal fails and the same is dismissed accordingly. However, taking note of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the time specified in the impugned orders for payment of arrears expires today, we find it fit and proper to grant a period of one month from today. J.CHELAMESWAR, CHIEF JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE vgs