IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 14TH KARTHIKA 1930 W.A.No.2135 of 2008 ------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).18707/2003, DATED 26/09/2008 .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.2:- -------------------------------------------------- DESHABHIMANI DAILY, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH NAIR RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT NO 1:- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. APPUKUTTAN VALLIKUNNU, 47/991 - A, ACS SCHOOL ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI - 17. 2. THE LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM. R1 BY ADV.SRI.A.JAYASANKER. R2 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.Dattu,C.J. & A.K.Basheer,J. --------------------------------------------- W.A.No.2135 of 2008 -------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 5th November, 2008 JUDGMENT Basheer,J. The employer in a dispute before the Labour Court, Kollam is the appellant. 2. The dispute arose when respondent No.1 herein, who was admittedly working as Associate Editor in the establishment of the appellant, had made a claim under Section 17(2) of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (for short “the Act”). It was contended by respondent No.1 that he had been denied his salary from September, 1998. The employer took up the contention that respondent No.1 had, in fact, been unauthorisedly absent from duty and, therefore, he was not entitled to any “dues” as contemplated under the Act. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court and it was thus that the Labour Court happened to pass Exhibit P8 award. 3. In the award, the Labour Court held that the claim made by respondent No.1was not sustainable, since he could have claimed any “dues” under Section 17(2) of the Act only if he had worked during the relevant period and also only if any amount was due in terms of employment as contemplated under the Act. It was also held that since the amount claimed by the workman was in respect of the period during which he was not working, W.A.No.2135 of 2008 - 2 - the claim was liable to be rejected. 4. The above award was challenged by respondent No.1 before the learned Single Judge. The primary prayer was to issue a writ of certiorari to quash Exhibit P8 in so far as it rejected his claim. The alternative prayer was to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.1 to consider the case afresh and decide the same in accordance with law. 5. The learned Judge, after considering the rival contentions of the parties, held that the Labour Court was not justified in rejecting the claim of respondent No.1 outright. It was noticed by the learned Judge that the larger issue as to whether there was denial of employment to respondent No.1 was still pending consideration before the Labour Court in I.D.No.17 of 2007. The learned Judge had also adverted to certain other contentions, to which we do not propose to refer at this stage in view of the order that we propose to pass. 6. As mentioned earlier, the larger issue as to whether respondent No.1 was unauthorisedly absent or he was denied employment is still at large. The said dispute is admittedly pending consideration before the Labour Court, Ernakulam on a reference made by the Government. In our view, the Labour Court, while passing Exhibit P8 award, had palpably gone wrong in holding that the claim of respondent No.1 fell outside the purview of Section 17(2) of the Act and that there was no prohibition for raising a proper dispute inclusive of the claim at a later stage. The learned Judge had rightly, in our view, found that the above finding entered by the Labour Court could not W.A.No.2135 of 2008 - 3 - be sustained in the facts and circumstances of the case Accordingly, the learned Judge had vacated all the findings in the award and directed the Labour Court, Ernakulam to decide the issues in both cases. 7. Going by the provisions contained in Section 17 of the Act and also considering the fact that the question of denial of employment is still at large, we do not find any material illegality or irregularity in the view taken by the learned Judge. In our view, the learned Judge was justified in setting aside Exhibit P8 award and directing the Labour Court, Ernakulam to hear the parties and decide the issues in both cases, in accordance with law. 8. The Labour Court, Ernakulam shall decide the dispute in I.D.No.17 of 2007 and the dispute in Exhibit P8 award untrammelled or uninfluenced by any of the observations made by the learned Judge in the impugned judgment. It will be open to the parties to urge all their contentions before the Labour Court, Ernakulam, which shall dispose of the two cases as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four months from today. The Writ Appeal is disposed of in the above terms. H.L.Dattu Chief Justice A.K.Basheer vku/- Judge