IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 20TH MAGHA 1930 WA.No. 2873 of 2007 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.29906/2007DTD.17.10.2007 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER : ------------------------------------- P.S.BASHEER (E.S.I. NO.1227509), POKKANDARIL, KODAMTHURUTHU P.O., KUTHIATHODE, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.N.R.CHANDRASEKHARAN SRI.T.H.CHACKO RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------------------------- 1. M/S.PEARL FOOD PRODUCTS, ERAMALLOOR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, ERAMALLOOR P.O., CHERTHALA. 2. SRI.K.A.KUTTYMOOSA (PARTNER OF M/S.PEARL FOOD PRODUCTS) PEARL GARDEN, CHANDIROOR P.O. 3. IYSHA KUNJUMOIDEEN (PARTNER OF M/S.PEARL FOOD PRODUCTS), PEARL VIEW BUILDING, CHANDIROOR P.O. 4. P.M.AYSHA UMMA, (PARTNER OF M/S.PEARL FOOD PRODUCTS), PEARL FOOD PRODUCTS), IBRAHIM MANZIL, CHANDIROOR P.O. 5. HAFSA AHMEDKUTTY (PARTNER OF M/S.PEARL FOOD PRODUCTS), KAZHAKKEL PANADASRAKKATTIL, CHANDIROOR P.O. 6. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICE OF THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA. 7. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT), COMMERCIAL TAX, INSPECTION CIRCLE, ALAPPUZHA. 8. THE TAHASILDAR (RR), TALUK OFFICE, CHERTHALA. 9. THE LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K. MEERA. ADV SRI. R.AZAD BABU FOR R.2 TO 5 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B. KOSHY, Ag. CJ. & P.B HAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WRIT APPEAL No.2873 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of February, 2009. JUDGMENT KOSHY, Ag.CJ, The writ petitioner along with 54 others approached the Labour Court by filing a petition under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act seeking monetary benefits contending that the first respondent establishment, in which they were employed, was closed down and their services were terminated violating the provisions of Section 25 N, 25 O etc. The respondent management contended that during the pendency of the above claim petition, the disputes were settled. The Labour Court found that whether there was an illegal closure and whether Section 25 O is attracted etc., can be decided only by adjudication raised in an industrial dispute and not under Section 33 C(2) petition. 2. There was a conciliation and settlement which was signed by the Management, Union and the Labour Officer regarding the issue (marked as Exts.P17 and R1 before the Labour Court) and it is contended that the petitioners already received the amount as per the settlement. WA. 2873/2007 2 Management produced the receipts to show that the petitioners had received the amount (Ext.R2 marked before the Labour Court). In the above circumstances, the Labour Court rejected the claim petition. The learned Single Judge endorsed the above view. 3. Proceedings under Section 33C (2) is in the nature of execution proceedings. The rights have to be adjudicated by award in an industrial dispute or by settlements or by service conditions. If adjudicated, pre-existing rights are not given, the workman can file application under Section 33C (2) to get the amounts computed by the Labour Court and realise the same. Since the right to get the amount cannot be adjudicated in a claim petition and the petitioner herein had received the amount in pursuance of the settlement, we are of the view that no interference is called for with the impugned judgment. The Writ Appeal is dismissed. J.B. KOSHY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.