IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1931 WA.No. 243 of 2008 --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA NO.1684/2007 IN WPC.1752/2006 Dated 12/12/2007 .................... APPELLANT: RESPONDENT ------------------------ FRAMATONE CONNECTORS LTD., FORMERLY KNOWN AS FRAMATOME CONNECTORS OEN LTD., ELECTROGIRI, MULANTHURUTHY. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR RESPONDENT: PETITIONER ------------------------- THANKACHY JOSEPH, W/O.JOSEPH T.A., THADATHIL HOUSE, THIRUVANIYOOR P.O. BY ADV. SRI.A.V.XAVIER THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/02/2010, ALONG WITH WA NO. 639 OF 2008 & CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------ W.A.Nos.243, 445, 468, 639, 647, 661, 664 & 746/2008 ------------------------------ Dated this, the 23rd day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. These appeals are filed against the common order passed by the learned Single Judge on 12.12.2007 in I.A.Nos.1684 to 1690 and 1692/2007 in W.P.(C) No.1752/2006. The Industrial Tribunal, Alappuzha passed an award in favour of the workmen, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P4 in the Writ Petition. The Tribunal found that the workmen concerned were retrenched in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as “the I.D.Act”). Therefore, they were entitled to be reinstated. Since the workmen were temporary employees, the Tribunal held that they were not entitled to be reinstated as regular workmen, but only as temporary workmen. The said award is under challenge in the Writ Petition. Pending hearing, he workmen concerned WA No.243/2008 & conn.cases - 2 - moved the aforementioned Interlocutory Applications, claiming payment of last drawn wages. The above I.As were allowed, overruling the contentions of the appellant. According to the appellant, there was no positive direction to reinstate the workmen concerned. If that be so, there cannot be any order under Section 17B of the I.D.Act. The learned Single Judge, after referring to the findings in para 24 of the impugned award, did not accept that contention and allowed the applications. Hence these appeals. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned counsel for the workmen. The learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the contention, which was unsuccessfully canvassed before the learned Single Judge that there is no positive direction by the Tribunal for reinstatement and therefore, there cannot be any order under Section 17B of the I.D.Act. The relevant portion of Ext.P4 award reads as follows: “24. In view of the fact that these workmen concerned were not working in regular posts and they had not undergone any recruitment process to WA No.243/2008 & conn.cases - 3 - become regular employees, it is not legally possible to give a direction to reinstate them in service as if they were regularly working. Even through a declaration by holding that the termination of their services was in violation of Sec.25F of the I.D. Act, their re-inductment in employment can only in the same status ie., the status of a temporary employee. Therefore, it is declared that the retrenchment effected in the case of these workmen was in violation of the provision contemplated in Sec.25F of the I.D. Act. In view of that, all of them have to be put back to the respective places in which they were working. As a consequence of that they would deem to be in service till they are validly retrenched. Till the date of valid retrenchment, they will be eligible for compensation and the back wages at the rate of 50% of their last drawn wages.” (Emphasis supplied) Going by the above operative portion of the award, the contention of the appellant that there is no direction for reinstatement, cannot be accepted. There is a direction for reinstatement. But, it is not a direction to reinstate the workmen as regular employees, but as temporary employees. So, the view taken by the learned Single Judge is tenable. At WA No.243/2008 & conn.cases - 4 - any rate, it is a plausible view on the facts of the case. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the orders under appeal. In the result, the Writ Appeals fail and they are, accordingly, dismissed. K. Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. nm.