IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2008 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1930 CRP.No. 1625 of 2000(B) ------------------------------- CMA.57/1998 OF THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, KOZHIKODE .................................. REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/APPLICANT : -------------------------------------------------------------------------- K.V.PRABHAKARAN, KANNACHAN VEETTIL HOUSE, OLAVANNA, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN SMT.ASHA K.SHENOY RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/OPPOSITE PARTY : ----------------------------------------------------------------- MALABAR SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS, THIRUVANNOOR NADA, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN (SR.) SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. -------------------------------- C.R.P. No. 1625 OF 2000 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of June, 2008 O R D E R The revision petitioner is the applicant in P.W.A. No.12/97 before the Labour Court, Kozhikkode and respondent in C.M.A. No.57/98 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Kozhikkode. The Labour Court passed an order directing the employer to pay Rs.97,723/- towards the differences between the wages paid and the wages payable to the applicant during the period from 01.09.1989 to 04.02.1997. The applicant was allowed to recover from the employer the said amount after deducting Rs.7,962/- already paid. Challenging the above order, the employer filed C.M.A.No.57/98 and the Appellate Court by judgment dated 10.12.1998 modified the order by reducing the amount payable to the applicant at Rs.9,953/-. Challenging the above judgment, this revision. 2. The petitioner/workman was dismissed from service by the respondent with effect from 27.10.1975. The Labour Court by award dated 30.09.1988 in I.D. No.24/86 directed reinstatement of the C.R.P. 1625/2000 2 petitioner in service with 40% back wages from 05.01.1976 onwards. Authority under the Payment of Wages Act (Labour Court) accepted the calculation statement attached to the counter statement of respondent and held that towards back wages for the above said period the petitioner is entitled to Rs.51,327/-. According to the petitioner/workman after his reinstatement on 01.09.1989 till 04.02.1997 the petitioner was paid only the wages of a temporary employee. It is submitted that since the dismissal of the petitioner was set aside, the petitioner is entitled to full back wages from 01.09.1989 onwards as he was actually working in the establishment from that date onwards. He claims the difference between the wages paid and the wages payable during the period after deducting the amount received by the petitioner at Rs.97,723/-. It is also submitted that Rs.7,962/- was paid during the pendency of the proceedings. Therefore he is entitled to the balance amount. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent/employer submitted that the petitioner/workman joined the canteen on 14.10.1971. He was C.R.P. 1625/2000 3 suspended from service on 27.10.1975 and was terminated from service on 29.12.1995. Therefore the question of back wages arises only from 27.10.1995. According to the respondent the petitioner will be entitled to wages only for the period from 27.10.1975 to 30.09.1976 and thereafter from 08.03.1978. The amount worked out towards back wages is Rs.10,788.10/-. 4. The revision petitioner/workman challenges the order of the District Court. According to him, the order of reinstatement requires the management to treat the workman as a full time employee person and therefore he is entitled to the wages payable to a permanent worker. It is also submitted that he was a permanent worker at the time of termination of his service. The contention of the respondent that the revision petitioner is entitled only for the wages due to temporary worker for the period he had actually worked is unsustainable in the light of the order passed by the Labour Court for reinstatement with 40% back wages. According to the petitioner, the respondent ought to have reinstated him in the permanent post as he was holding the same C.R.P. 1625/2000 4 post at the time of dismissal from service. 5. The Labour Court accepted the contentions of the workman and held that the difference between the wages paid to the petitioner and wages payable to him during the period from 01.09.1989 to 04.02.1997 is the amount which the petitioner is entitled to. Accordingly, the order was passed by the Labour Court. The Appellate Court held that the petitioner/workman is only entitled to the salary attached to the temporary post he was holding during the relevant period. The Appellate Court also worked out the actual period of work done by the petitioner and held that he is entitled only for the wages for the period he had actually worked. 6. The award of the Labour Court provides that the workman shall be reinstated with 40% back wages and continuity of service. The reduction now sought for on behalf of the respondent/employer is not a deduction as authorised by the order of reinstatement and therefore is not acceptable. The period for which 40% back wages has to be worked out is the period of permanent service for which he is entitled. In the C.R.P. 1625/2000 5 circumstances the judgment passed by the Appellate Court without considering the true meaning and spirit of the order of reinstatement passed by the Labour Court is unsustainable. In the result, the impugned judgment is set aside and the order of the Labour Court dated 30.04.1998 is restored. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE pac C.R.P. 1625/2000 6 HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. C.R.P. No. 1625 OF 2000 ORDER 12th day of June, 2008