IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2009 / 25TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 34462 of 2008(C) -------------------------- CP.40/2007 of LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------------- N.SREENIVASAN, DIRECTOR, A-ONE MILK PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED, ERAVICHIRA PADINJARU, PATHARAM P.O., SOORANAD SOUTH, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. N.VIDHYADHARAN, THEKKEPPOVANTHARAYIL, KIDANGAYAM NORTH, PATHARAM P.O., SOORANAD SOUTH, KOLLAM DIST. 2. THE LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R) TALUK OFFICE, KUNNATHUR, KOLLAM DT. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, SOORANADU SOUTH, KOLLAM. GOVT.PLEADER SMT.SUDHADEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 34462 OF 2008 (C) ==================== Dated this the 15th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P3, an order passed by the 2nd respondent in Claim Petition No.40/07 filed by the 1st respondent invoking its power under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 2. Admittedly, the claim was based on the award in ID 43/01 rendered by the Industrial Tribunal, Kollam. By that award, the workmen was ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages. This award has become final. It is claiming the monetary benefits arising out of this award that the workmen filed the claim petition. Counsel for the petitioner contends that it was beyond the jurisdiction of the Labour Court in quantifying the benefits, and that such quantification is permissible only in a regular reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 3. I am not persuaded to agree with the above contention. The reason is that, under the award, the workmen is entitled to WPC 34462/08 :2 : reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. This necessarily means that the workmen is entitled to all monetary benefits as if he had continued in service. It is the settled position of law that in a proceedings under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court is entitled to quantify the monetary benefits granted in an award. In this case, this is precisely what the Labour Court has done. The right of the workmen to receive monetary benefits having been accepted by the Labour Court while adjudicating the Industrial Dispute, there is absolutely no necessity for yet another dispute for quantifying the benefits. This is what is sought to be achieved in a proceedings under Section 33(C)(2) of the I.D.Act. For these reasons, the quantification made by the Labour Court in Ext.P3 is well within its jurisdiction and cannot be impugned. 4. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks for a breathing time for making payment of the amount ordered under Ext.P3. It is WPC 34462/08 :3 : directed that if payment of the full amount is made in two monthly instalments, the first instalment on or before 31st of January 2009 and second instalment on or before 28th of February, 2009, the recovery proceedings shall not be initiated. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp