IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2008 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1929 WA.No. 241 of 2008 -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.26241/2000 Dated 03/12/2007 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------- THE SECRETARY, CANNANORE DISTRICT TILE WORKERS UNION(AITUC), PAPPINISSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT BY M.NARAYANAN, S/O.K.KANNAN, P.O.KUNHIMANGALAM, KANNUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------- 1. THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BALIAPATTAM TILE WORKS (P)LTD., P.O.PAPPINISSERY, KANNUR. 3. THE SECRETARY, BALIAPATTAM TILE WORKERS UNION(CITU), PAPPINISSERY. 4. THE SECRETARY, BALIAPATTAM TILE WORKERS NATIONAL LABOUR UNION(INTUC), P.O.PAPPINISSERY. 5. THE SECRETARY, CANNANORE DISTRICT SWATHANTHRA TILE WORKERS UNION(STU), P.O.PAPPINISSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K. MEERA. R2 BY ADV. SRI. P.V. LOHITHAKSHAN. R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L. DATTU, CJ. & K.M. JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WRIT APPEAL No. 241 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT H.L.DATTU, CJ, Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in O.P. No.26241 of 2000 dated 3.12.2007, the petitioner in the writ petition has presented this writ appeal. 2. The learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition has followed his earlier decision in O.P. No.25906 of 2000. 3. Facts in nutshell are: the writ petition was filed by one of the unions of the respondent Management, inter alia questioning the correctness or otherwise of Ext.P1 order passed by the Industrial Tribunal. In Ext.P1 order the Tribunal has held that the badali workers who have completed 240 days of attendance subsequent to 20th of October, 1993 are not eligible to receive wages/salary increase as contemplated in Clause (2) of the settlement dated 20.10.1993. 4. As we have already noticed, the learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition filed by the petitioner Union and in that he has followed the earlier decision in O.P. 25906 of 2000. In the decision on which reliance was placed on by the learned Single Judge, it was noticed therein that in the settlement, the Management had agreed for wage increase to all permanent workers and also for all badali workers, who have completed 240 days of attendance, and that would only mean that on completion of 240 days as on the W.A.241/2008. 2 date of Ext.P2 settlement. The learned Single Judge is also of the opinion that the interpretation adopted by the Tribunal is one possible view and may be a different view may be possible, but a writ court is not expected to sit as an appellate forum and interfere with the awards passed by the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, unless the view taken by the tribunal is wholly perverse. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Single Judge, the petitioner Union is before us in this Writ Appeal. 5. Ext.P2 settlement was entered into between the management and the petitioner Union. In the settlement, it was stated in Clause (2) that those persons who have completed 240 days of attendance as on 1.4.1993 are eligible and entitled for wage increase. 6. Those workmen, who have completed 240 days of attendance after the settlement that was entered into by the management and the workmen's Union, had approached the Labour Court in I.D. No.24 of 1997. The issue that arose for consideration before the Labour Court was, whether those badali workers of petitioner Union who have completed 240 days of attendance after 1.4.1993, that is the date of implementation of wage increase, are eligible for getting wage increase as contemplated under Clause (2) of the settlement dated 20.10.1993, and the second issue was whether the action of the management to impose a deduction in the salary of badali workers of the Company's III Factory at Payyannur is justiciable. 7. Before the Labour Court the parties to the lis had adduced evidence and also had marked the settlement that was entered into by the management with the workmen's Union. W.A.241/2008. 3 8. Keeping in view Clause (2) of the settlement, which provides for the salary increase, the Labour Court was of the opinion that the wage increase would apply to those workers who have completed 240 days of attendance as on the date of the entering into the settlement and the same will not apply to those workmen who have completed 240 days after the settlement. To arrive at the aforesaid conclusion, the Labour Court had taken into consideration Clause (2) of the settlement. The said clause reads as under: “Salary increase The management agree to give to all the permanent workmen and to those Badali workmen who have completed 240 days of attendance, an increase in the existing salary as follows, which increase is termed as “Additional Salary” and is in addition to the basic pay. (i) With effect from 1.4.1993 Rs. 100 p.m. (Rupees one hundred only). (ii) With effect from 1.4.1994 a further increase of Rs.25 p.m. (Rupees Twenty five only) (iii) With effect from 1.4.1996 a further increase of Rs.25 p.m. (Rupees Twenty five only)” 9. The claim of the workmen is that though the settlement is dated 20.10.1993, the same would apply even to those workmen who have completed 240 days of attendance after the settlement that was entered into by the petitioner union and the management. 10. A reading of the aforesaid clause, which we have extracted above would clearly demonstrate that what was in contemplation of the W.A.241/2008. 4 management and the workmen's Union was that, those badali workers, who have completed 240 days of attendance as on the date of signing of the settlement are only the workmen who are entitled to increase in salary and that would not apply to those workmen who have completed 240 days of attendance after the date of settlement. Keeping in view the language employed in the settlement and also the evidence that was adduced by the parties to the lis before the Labour Court, the Labour Court, in our opinion, has correctly interpreted the aforesaid clause in the settlement between the petitioner Union and the Management. 11. The learned Single Judge, after going through the award passed by the Labour Court is of the opinion that even if another view is possible with regard to Clause (2) of the settlement, that view need not be imposed upon the Management, since the writ court is not a court of appeal against the award passed by the Labour Court. Further, the learned Single Judge is of the opinion that if the finding of the Labour Court is perverse or capricious, then only a writ court can interfere in such an award. The reasoning of the learned Judge is in accordance with the dicta laid down by Apex Court in several decisions. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the reasoning of the learned Judge. 12. Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Union has brought to our notice the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Surendranagar District Panchayat v. Gangaben Laljibhai ((2006) 9 SCC 132) and also the decision of the Apex Court in Syndicate Bank v. General Secretary, Syndicate Bank Staff Association ((2000) 5 SCC 65) to suggest the amounts already paid need not be recovered from the workmen. In Gangaben Laljibhai's case the Labour Court had directed the reinstatement of the workmen W.A.241/2008. 5 with back wages. That was questioned by the appellants in the said decision before the Apex Court. The Apex Court while taking exception to the order passed by the Labour Court in directing reinstatement being erroneous and irregular, had observed that the salary and other emoluments, if any, paid pursuant to the order of reinstatement passed by the Labour Court need not be recovered from the workmen by the management. 13. In Syndicate Bank's Case, the Supreme Court once again has observed that the amount paid to a workmen in view of the award passed by the Labour Court, need not be recovered by the employer. 14. In the instant case the Labour Court after interpreting Clause (2) of the settlement between the parties, has come to the conclusion that those workmen who have completed 240 days of attendance after the settlement are not entitled to back wages. However, before the Labour Court could pass the aforesaid award, the Management had paid the increased salary to some of the workmen. 15. The present case is not one of those cases, where the Management had dismissed an employee from service and an order of reinstatement has been passed by the Labour Court and during the pendency of the matter before the superior forums, the wages had been paid pursuant to an award passed by the Labour Court. Therefore, we are of the view that those decisions on which reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the appellant may not assist him in any manner whatsoever. 16. In view of the above discussion, in our opinion, the writ appeal filed by the petitioner Union requires to be rejected. Accordingly, it is rejected. W.A.241/2008. 6 However, we make it clear that the respondent-Management shall recover the amounts paid to the workmen in easy instalments of not more than Rs.100/- per month from the wages that may be payable to the workmen of the petitioner Union, who have completed 240 days of attendance after 1.4.1993. With these observations, the writ appeal is rejected. Ordered accordingly. H.L. DATTU, CHIEF JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE sb.