IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2010 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1932 WA.No. 599 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.26048/2001 Dated 01/02/2008 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ THE PRESIDENT, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK KARINKAL, METAL AND KETTIDANIRMANA THOZHILALI CONGRESS (INTUC), PPM FRUITS CENTRE, M.S.C.BUILDING, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS & LEGAL HEIRS OF IST RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. C.P.DAVID (DIED), CHAMBAKOTTUKUDIYIL, PINDIMANA. 2. LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO LABOUR DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. MARY DAVID, W/O.LATE C.P.DAVID, CHAMBAKOTTUKUDIYIL, PINDIMANA. 5. MANJU REJI, D/O.LATE C.P.DAVID AND W/O.REJI SACKARIA, CHAMBAKOTTUKUDIYIL, PINDIMANA. 6. ARUN DAVID, S/O.LATE C.P.DAVID, CHAMBAKOTTUKUDIYIL, PINDIMANA. 7. EBI DAVID, S/O.LATE C.P.DAVID, CHAMBAKOTTUKUDIYIL, PINDIMANA. 8. ANOOP DAVID, S/O.LATE C.P.DAVID, CHAMBAKOTTUKUDIYIL, PINDIMANA. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVASIS SRI.A.V.XAVIER FOR R4TO8 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- W.A. No.599 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 22nd March, 2010. J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioner is the appellant. The Writ Petition was filed, challenging Ext.P21 award, to the extent it concerns issue No.2 referred to the Labour Court, Ernakulam, by the Government. 2. The brief facts of the case are the following : The Government, by order dated 16.10.1987, referred the following issues for adjudication : “1. Charter of demands (a) Wage Revision. (b) Leave with wages (c) Working time. 2. Whether the retrenchment of workers in Kothamangalam aggregates due to mechanisation is legal; if not, to what relief the workers are entitled to?” The Labour Court initially passed an award in favour of the workmen. The management challenged it before this Court, which lead to Ext.P18 judgment in O.P.No.8459 of 1992. This Court directed the Labour Court to consider whether the retrenchment was made, after following the legal formalities. The Labour Court reconsidered the matter and by Ext.P21 award, it WA NO.599/08 2 was held that the retrenchment was made, after following the due procedure like issuance of notice, tendering retrenchment compensation etc. It was also found that the retrenchment was necessitated due to mechanization of the establishment. Challenging the said finding in Ext.P21, the Writ Petition was filed by the Union. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition. Hence, this Writ Appeal. 3. We heard the learned counsel on both sides. Sri.P.V.Baby, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the retrenchment was made during the strike period and therefore, it is an unfair labour practice, prohibited by Section 25T of the Industrial Disputes Act and made punishable under Section 25U of the said Act. The learned counsel also submitted that the findings of the Labour Court that the retrenchment was justified and it was made after following due procedure, are also untenable. 4. In view of the remand order contained in Ext.P18 judgment of this Court, the contention that the retrenchment was an unfair labour practice, cannot be entertained by this Court. WA NO.599/08 3 This Court, by Ext.P18 judgment, only directed to consider whether various legal formalities, to be followed preceding a valid retrenchment, were followed or not. The Labour Court found that notices were issued to the workmen, as contemplated under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act and retrenchment compensation was also tendered to them. Therefore, the legal formalities were complied with, it was held. The Labour Court also took the view that the retrenchment was necessitated, as a result of mechanization. The above finding is a finding of fact, which this Court cannot disturb, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Labour Court also noticed that 5 of the workmen abandoned employment, two of the workmen did not have the necessary service for claiming retrenchment compensation and four others have been offered retrenchment compensation, but only one among them received. 5. Unless this Court is constituted as an Appellate Authority, over the decision of the Labour Court, we cannot interfere with the above findings. We notice that the learned Single Judge had reserved the rights of the workmen, who did not WA NO.599/08 4 receive the retrenchment compensation, to receive it. We also notice that the retrenchment in this case took place on 1.4.1986, that means 24 years have elapsed thereafter. In view of the above position, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal. The Writ Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. tgs K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- W.A. No.599 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T Dated 22nd March, 2010.