IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER MONDAY, THE 24TH AUGUST 2009 / 2ND BHADRA 1931 W.A.No.1732 of 2009 ---------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.3786/2008 Dated 18/06/2009 .................... APPELLANT: WRIT PETITIONER --------------------------------------------------- K.SURESH BABU, SREERAMA MANDIRAM, KOTTIYAM - P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN SRI.S.SUJITH SRI.V.A.SASIDHARAN SRI.JOSEPH ALBIN NEDUNTHALLY RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------------- 1. N.SOBHANAN, S/O.BHARGAVAN, (CLEANER BUS NO.KL/01/D/8212) RESIDING AT LAKSHMI BHAVAN, KOONAM VENGA P.O., MANKUZHI, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.SANU.S.PANICKER FOR R1 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.BANNURMATH, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No.1732 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of August 2009 JUDGMENT A.K.BASHEER, J. The appellant is the petitioner in Writ Petition No.3786/08 in which Ext.P4 order passed by the Labour Court, Kollam in a claim petition under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act was under challenge. The above writ petition was disposed of along with the two other writ petitions filed by the appellant/employer and the employee concerned. 2. The learned Single Judge by the common judgment set aside the award passed by the Labour Court. Consequently, Ext.P4 order passed under Section 33C(2) was also set aside. However, it was made clear that the workman would be entitled to file a fresh claim petition depending upon the award that may be passed by the Labour Court. 3. But while disposing of the writ petitions, the learned Single Judge observed in para 12 that the Labour Court shall consider the question whether the workman was entitled to 100% back wages instead of 60% as was held in the award. In paragraph 14, the learned Singe Judge further held that the workman shall not be called upon to refund the amount of Rs.50,000/- deposited by the appellant/employer pursuant to the direction issued by this court. 4. Appellant takes exception to the above two directions. It is submitted by the learned counsel that in the nature of the decision taken by W.A.No.1732 OF 2009 :: 2 :: the learned Single Judge, it was not at all necessary to impose the above two conditionalities while setting aside the award. We find considerable force in the above contention. However, we hasten to add that we are not expressing any opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the view taken by the learned Single Judge on those two aspects. 5. We are of the view that it will be more appropriate, if the Labour Court takes a decision afresh in the matter untrammeled by any of the observations/directions contained in the impugned judgment. It will be open to the Labour Court to pass an award afresh in the light of the contentions raised by the parties. But the Labour Court shall not recover the sum of Rs.50,000/- that had been disbursed to the workman already, till a fresh award is passed as directed. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. (S.R.BANNURMATH) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE jes