IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 7TH MARCH 2008 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1929 OP.No. 1451 of 1996(W) --------------------------------- CP.72/1991 OF LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM. .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- A.V. LONAPPAN, ASST. OFFICER, ESTATE DEPARTMENT, FACT COCHIN DIVISION, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON MANAYANI. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LIMITED (FACT), A GOVT. OF INDIA ENTERPRISES, COCHIN DIVISION, AMBALAMEDU, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, FACT COCHIN DIVISION, AMBALAMEDU, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, D.O. NO. 1, JOS ANNEXE, JOS BUILDINGS, COCHIN -16. 3. THE LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. N. SUDHA DEVI, ADV. SRI.A.M. SHAFFIQUE, ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/03/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P. NO. 1451/1996-W: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.3. DT. 11/11/1991 NUMBERED AS C.P. 72/1991. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE R.1. BEFORE THE R.3. DT. NIL. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE STATEMENT DT. 12/03/1992 FILED BY THE R.2. BEFORE THE R.3. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO EXT.P.2. WRITTEN STATEMENT (WITHOUT THE EXHIBIT THEREIN) DT. 19/09/1993. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DT. 16/10/84 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT'S PERSONAL MANAGER TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ASST. PERSONNEL MANAGER OF THE R.1. DT. 11/03/1987. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 27/09/1995 IN C.P. 72/1991 PASSED BY THE R.3. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// prv. T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.NO.1451 of 1996-W - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7th day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner was working as Asst. Officer under the first respondent. The officers under the first respondent were covered under the Personal Accident Insurance Scheme with the second respondent. He met with an accident on 9.5.1984 at Athani, near Aluva while he was returning in a car after attending a ceremonial function relating to the family member of an employee of the first respondent. Even though the petitioner requested the respondents to settle the claim, no proper action was taken in the matter. The petitioner is alleged to have sustained 25% disability due to the accident. 2. By Ext.P1, he approached the Labour Court invoking the jurisdiction under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. That was rejected by Ext.P7 after hearing the parties. The correctness of Ext.P7 is the issue that arises for consideration in this original petition. The Labour Court has taken the view that the contract of insurance is between the OP 1451/1996 -2- petitioner and the second respondent insurance company. Appropriate relief has to be sought by the workman against the insurance company and not against the first respondent. It was, therefore, held that the petitioner is perfectly outside the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Labour Court had not decided the matter on merits and has chosen to decide the preliminary point to non suit the petitioner. It is contended that the employer is liable to meet the claim and therefore the petition is maintainable before the Labour Court. 4. It is a case where the liability of the insurance company to meet the claim of the petitioner, was the issue that arose for consideration before the Labour Court. As far as the insurance company is concerned, the Labour Court is lacking jurisdiction to pass an order under Section 33C(2) of the Act against them, because of the fact that there is no employer employee relationship between them. What is provided under Section 33C (2) is adjudication of the claim of a workman who is entitled to receive from the employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money. Therefore, the petition can be maintained only against an employer and not against a stranger like the insurance company. OP 1451/1996 -3- In the above view of the matter, the view taken by the Labour Court is perfectly justified. The original petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner will be at liberty to pursue his remedy in any other appropriate forum. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/ OP 1451/1996 -4- T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P. No.1451 of 1996-W - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT 7th March, 2008.