IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2008 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1930 OP.No. 18060 of 2001(Y) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., MISSION QUARTERS, T.B. ROAD,THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI (SR.) SRI.SAJI VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM. 2. SHRI. A.T. CHACKO, AKKARA HOUSE, WESTERN BAZAR, OLLUR 680 306 3. SHRI. K.V. AYYAPPAN, KOLOTH HOUSE, P.O. AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR 680 003 4. SHRI. M.P. PAUL, MEENACHERY HOUSE, ILARI, THRISSUR 12 5. SHRI. C.C. ANTO 1/12-CHANDY HOUSE, THRISSUR 5 6. SHRI. C.R. DEVASSY, CHIRAYATH HOUSE, VETTIKKAL, P.O. MANNUTHY, THRISSUR 7. SHRI. P.N. SEETHARAMAN, 6/517-KONNOGI STREET, LAXIMI NAGAR, POLICHALUR, CHENNAI 74 8. SHRI. A.A. FRANCIS, ALAPPAT HOUSE, HARE SREE NAGAR, PUTHURKARA, AYYANTHOLE P.O., THRISSUR DIST. 9. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR, NEW DELHI. BY ADV. SRI.H.B.SHENOY FOR R2TO8 SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY FOR R2TO8 R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SMITHA R9 BY SRI. ALEX VARGHESE THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 ORDER ON CMP 29060 OF 2001 IN OP 18060 OF 2001 DISMISSED 19.6.2008 SD/-C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 12.2.2001 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- O.P. NO. 18060 OF 2001 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Heard senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the respondents. Separate applications filed by the respondents under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act are allowed by the Labour Court holding that claimants were entitled to allowance as they worked as Special Assistants though their regular employment was in the cadre of Head Clerk. Contention of the petitioner is that claim is hopelessly barred by limitation because it was made around 11 years after the employment of the respondents. Secondly petitioner raised a contention that claimants have not discharged the duties of Special Assistants which alone entitle them for the claim. Counsel for the respondents-claimants on the other hand contended that management never raised objection against their claim that they have worked as Special Assistants. So far as the claim of limitation is concerned, the case of the respondents is that no limitation is provided under the statute. On going through the order of the Labour Court, I find that 2 petitioner has not denied that claimants have worked as Special Assistants. In the absence of any averment denying the work done by the claimants as Special Assistants, I do not think they should adduce any evidence towards proof of work done by them as Special Assistants. Moreover the management has no case that Special Assistants were available in the branches where the claimants were employed during the relevant time so that the service of the claimants was not required in that capacity. Therefore the claim of claimants that they have discharged the duties of Special Assistants entitling them for special allowance was rightly allowed by the Labour Court. It is also not in dispute that Special Assistants were entitled to special allowance under the Bi-partite agreement. The only issue that remains to be considered is whether the delay in making the claim is fatal. In the absence of any time limit provided under the statute, claim has to be made necessarily within a reasonable time. In this case, it is seen that claimants were continuously doing the work of Special Assistants until claim petitions were filed. The Bank allowed the claimants to do the work different from what they were supposed to do under the employment which pre-supposes the bank's willingness to pay 3 allowance which the employees are entitled to under Bi-partite agreement. In this view of the matter, and since claimants were continuously doing the work of Special Assistants even at the time of making claim petitions, their claim cannot be rejected on the ground of limitation. However, the delay in making the claim petition should not lead to further liability to the bank in the form of interest. Consequently, I modify that portion of the order directing payment of interest to the claimants. If payment is not made to the claimants within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, petitioner will have to pay interest at the rate ordered by the Labour Court. Respondents will produce a copy of this judgment before the bank and make claim for the bank to make payment within the time stipulated above. O.P. is disposed of as above. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 4