IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2011 / 20TH ASWINA 1933 RSA.No. 1310 of 2004() ---------------------- AS.33/2004 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, VADAKARA OS.128/1998 of MUNSIFF COURT.,NADAPURAM .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF: --------------------------------------------------- MANIKOTH MARIYAM, D/O.KUNHAMMEDKUTTY 38 YEARS, KUMMANKODE AMSOM, NADAPURAM DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.AUGUSTINE(AREEKATTEL) RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT/DEFENDANT: ----------------------------------- THOLANTE THAZHAKUNI KUNHIRAMAN, S/O.KANNAN, 45 YEARS, KUMMANKODE AMSOM, NADAPURAM DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J ........................................... RSA No.1310 of 2004 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2011 JUDGMENT Plaintiff in O.S.128 of 1998 on the file of Munsiff Court, Nadapuram is the appellant. Defendant is the respondent. Suit was filed for damages of Rs.10,000/- and for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the arrangement of the appellant to pluck coconuts from the plaint schedule property. The case of the appellant is that respondent is a permanent coconut tree climber of the plaint schedule property and he refused to pluck coconuts from the plaint schedule property from January 1996 onwards and in spite of repeated demands, he refused to pluck coconuts and therefore coconuts had fallen and she thereby lost Rs.4000/- being the value of coconuts lost and including the loss of tender coconuts and cadjan leaves, she sustained a total damage of Rs.10,000/-. It was contended that respondent is not entitled to cause any obstruction to plucking coconuts by engaging labourers. When the respondent refused to pluck coconuts, appellant is entitled to RSA 1310/2004 2 make his own arrangements to pluck the coconuts. Respondent resisted the suit contending that the suit is not maintainable and it was the husband of the appellant who used to engage him for plucking coconuts and he had plucked coconuts as directed by Abdul Rahiman, the husband of appellant earlier and from July 1996 he did not pluck the coconuts because, though he was ready to pluck, he was not permitted to pluck the coconuts by the husband of the appellant. It was contended that the appellant is not entitled to the damages or permanent prohibitory injunction as sought for. 2. Learned Munsiff, on the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, DW1 and Ext.C1 report of the Commissioner granted a decree directing the respondent to pay a damages of Rs.4000/- and also restrained him by a permanent prohibitory injunction from interfering in any manner from plucking coconuts from the plaint schedule property by the appellant. Respondent challenged the decree before Additional District Court, Vadakara in A.S.29 of 2000. Appellant in turn, filed A.S.39 of 2000 challenging the quantum of damages contending that she should have been granted the damages as sought for. Learned Additional District RSA 1310/2004 3 Judge on reappreciation of evidence found that the respondent is an agricultural worker as defined under the Agricultural Workers Act 1974 and in view of Section 37 of the Act, civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. Learned Additional District Judge considered the merit of the suit also and found that the appellant is not entitled to the damages or injunction sought for. A.S.29 of 2000 was allowed and the decree granted by the trial court was set aside and the suit was dismissed. A.S.39 of 2000 was dismissed. Appellant is challenging the decree passed by the first appellate court in A.S.29 of 2000. 3. Learned counsel appearing for appellant was heard. The argument of the learned counsel is that though respondent is an agricultural worker as defined under Agricultural Workers Act, there is no dispute as defined under Section 2(c) of the said Act as there was no dispute on non-employment or terms of employment or conditions of labour and therefore, when it is not a dispute as defined under the Act, learned District Judge was not justified in holding that the suit is not maintainable. Learned counsel also pointed out that in any case the bar provided under Section 37 is only in respect of a suit or other proceedings, to RSA 1310/2004 4 set aside or modify any order or decision by any authority or office under the Act in respect of any matter falling within its scope and not a suit of this nature and the decision of this court in Rajamani V. Chathu (1990(1) KLT 298) relied on by the learned Additional District Judge is not applicable at all. Learned counsel also argued that when the respondent is admittedly a permanent coconut climber and he admittedly did not pluck coconuts during the period and as a result, appellant sustained loss, first appellate court was not justified in holding that appellant is not entitled to damages. Learned counsel also argued that in any case, the decree for permanent prohibitory injunction granted by the trial court should not have been interfered. 4. There is force in the submission of the learned counsel that first appellate court did not properly decide the question of bar of jurisdiction. Section 2(c) of Agricultrual Workers Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), defines an agricultrual dispute as any dispute or difference between land owners and land owners or between land owners and agricultrual workers or between agricultrual workers, which is connected with the employment or non-employment or terms of employment or the RSA 1310/2004 5 conditions of labour of any worker and the bar of jurisdiction of civil court provided under Section 37 is only to the effect that no civil court shall entertain any suit or other proceedings to set aside or modify any order or decision passed by any authority or office under the Act in respect of any of the matters falling within its scope. The suit is not to set aside or modify any order or decision passed by an authority or officer under the Act in respect of any of the matters falling within the scope of the Act. Moreover, the case of the appellant is that respondent who is a permanent coconut climber refused to pluck coconuts from the plaint schedule property and respondent has no case that there was any non-employment or any dispute with regard to the terms of employment or other conditions of labour. In such circumstances, the finding of first appellate court that the suit is barred under Section 37 of the Act is not sustainable. 5. But the question is whether on the facts and evidence, appellant is entitled to the decree for damages or for permanent prohibitory injunction. The argument of the learned counsel is that respondent did not pluck the coconuts and in spite of repeated demands, he refused to do so. Even if a permanent RSA 1310/2004 6 coconut climber refuses to pluck the coconuts from the property of a land owner, he is entitled to get it plucked by engaging another agricultrual worker as provided under the Act. Appellant has no case that he has approached the authority as provided under the Act and respondent obstructed the plucking of coconuts by such coconut climber. In such circumstances, the finding of first appellate court that appellant is not entitled to damages on account of the failure to pluck the coconuts is perfectly correct. Then the only question is whether appellant is entitled to a decree for permanent prohibitory injuction. The evidence establish that the respondent is not causing any obstruction to the plucking of coconuts from plaint schedule property. In such circumstances, I do not find any reasonable cause for the apprehension. No substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. Hence appellant is entitled to the decree for injunction also. The appeal is therefore dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk