IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2013 11TH MAGHA 193 WP(C).No. 18753 of 2009 (L) --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN CP.72/2006 of LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 07 09- 2007 PETITIONER(S): ----------------- THE COMMANDING OFFICER, INS DRONACHARYA,NAVAL BASE,COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPINATHA MENON, ADDL.CGSC RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,ERNAKULAM.
2. SRI.A.J.CLEETUS, ANCHUTHAIKAL HOUSE, CHULLICKAL,KOCHI-682 005.
3. SRI.V.RAJAGOPAL, GOSHREE NIKETHAN, M.B.LANE,CHERAI,KOCHI-682 001.
4. SRI.A.S.RAJENDRAKUMAR, HOUSE NO.1/1647,AMARAVATHI,KOCHI-682 001.
5. SRI.P.R.SABU, PERUMANA HOUSE,CHERAI P.O.,PIN-683 514. R2TO5 BY ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR R2TO5 BY ADV. SRI.MANU GOVIND R2TO5 BY ADV. SMT.B.MEERA R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR ,ASST.S.G OF INDIA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 18753 of 2009 (L) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1:TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE AWARD IN ID NO.1 OF 199.OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM EXT.P2:TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP NO.23134 OF 2000-D OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT DATED 23 D DAY OF DECEMBER 2005 EXT.P3:TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE CLAIM PETITION NO.72 OF 200.DATED 25 H DAY OF JULY, 2006. EXT.P4:TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN CP NO.72 OF 200.DATED 27 H DAY OF NOVEMBER,2006. EXT.P5:TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER IN CLAIM PETITION IN CP NO.72 OF 200.DATED 7 9.2007 OF THE CGIT, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P6:TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE IA NO.15971 OF 200.IN OP NO.23134 OF 200.DATED 10 H DAY OF OCTOBER, 2007 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. EXT.P7: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN IA NO.15971 OF 200.IN OP NO.23134 OF 200.OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE MANJULA CHELLUR,C.J.
& K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No.18753 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 31st day of January, 2013 JUDGMENT Manjula Chellur,CJ It is necessary to indicate in brief what exactly was the genesis for the present writ petition.
2. O.P.No.23134 of 2000 was filed at the instance of the Management challenging the award of the labour court. The said Original Petition came to be disposed of by the learned Single Judge by judgment dated 23.12.2005 placing total reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in Union of India vs. M.Aslam 2001(1) SCC 720.Paragraph 2 is relevant to understand the stand of the writ petitioner in this case, which reads as under:- "Accordingly, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this original petition is disposed of directing that the parties will be governed by the guidelines formulated by the department, following the direction in Aslam's case, which guidelines are stated to have been approved by the Apex Court. In terms of this, it is stated that the designations of the workmen- respondent No.2 onwards, be altered however, to their betterment W.P.(C) No.18753 o”
2. in terms of the emoluments and conditions of service. So much so, the directions in the impugned award regarding backwages would stand modified accordingly. This judgment is being issued, after noticing that the orders issued by this Court to comply with Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act are complied with. In so far as the continuance of service and other matters are concerned, there will be such reliefs as would be available to them." 3. Subsequent to the disposal of the Original Petition workmen approached the labour court with a claim petition under Section 33(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The benefits claimed by the workmen came to be worked out rather modified in terms of Mohammed Aslam's case. According to the Management, there was no justification for the labour court to give emoluments as done in the present case as the learned Single Judge never intended to award such benefits to the workmen.
4. Reading of paragraph 2 of the judgment dated 23.12.2005 clearly indicates that all the parties are governed by the guidelines formulated by the department which had the assent or approval of the Apex Court in Aslam's case. Therefore, the learned Single Judge directed modifying not only designations but also emoluments in a better perspective to the workmen. Reading of W.P.(C) No.18753 o”
3. this paragraph would definitely indicate betterment in emoluments, with reference to their modified designations to be worked out in accordance with the guidelines applicable to Unit-run canteens. One cannot understand that better emoluments referred to above would give unbridled power to the Management to work out the emoluments according to their own understanding. Neither the workmen nor the Management can go beyond the guidelines which are approved by the Apex Court in Aslam's case. The duty of the labour court in a claim petition is nothing but working out the reliefs as if executing a decree, strictly in accordance with the guidelines as spelt out in the case of Aslam. With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of. MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE sj 31/1