The Manager, Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. vs T.K. Sadhikkali & Anr.

The Petitioner is the Manager of Achoor Estate of a Public Limited Company by name Harrisons Malayalam Limited. The Petitioner is the Management and Respondent No.1 is the Workman in I.D. No.15/2007 on the files of the Labour Court, Kannur. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P4 Award dated 03.07.2013 of the Labour Court, Kannur, in I.D. No.15/2007 ordering reinstatement of the Respondent No.1 with 25% of back wages from 01.04.2004.

The Writ Petition was filed on 28.01.2014. The Writ Petition was admitted on 29.01.2014 and this Court passed an Interim Order staying Ext.P4 for a period of one month on condition that the Petitioner pays an amount of Rs.5,000/- to Respondent No.1. Though the Writ Petition came up for consideration on 26.02.2014, this Court ordered to post when moved again. Thereafter, it came up for consideration only in the year 2026. The Respondent No.1 has filed an Affidavit under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes (ID) Act, 1947, on 23.07.2020 affirming that he has not worked anywhere else after the termination of his employment by the Petitioner and that he did not work under any establishment since his employment under the Petitioner other than the Petitioner's factory. The Respondent No.1 filed a Counter Affidavit on 13.11.2025. Even though the Respondent No.1 filed an Affidavit under Section 17B of the ID Act, the Writ Petition was not brought up to consider his claim under Section 17B of the ID Act.

The dispute referred for adjudication to the Labour Court was “whether the denial of employment to the Workman, factory worker of Achoor Estate, by the Management of Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. is justifiable? If not, what relief the worker is entitled to?”

The case of the Respondent No.1 as revealed from Ext.P2 Claim Statement is that he was an employee at Achoor Estate of the Petitioner since August 1994; that he sustained serious injuries in an accident in the factory on 29.08.2000; that his right hand below the elbow was amputated; that after treatment, the Company Doctor issued Fitness Certificate; that he joined for duty during November 2000 and continued as a Security Guard till the date on which he was denied employment; and that the denial of employment to the Respondent No.1 is an unfair trade practice and in violation of the principles of natural justice.

The Petitioner filed Ext.P3 Written Statement contending, inter alia, that the Respondent No.1 was only a daily rated temporary worker of the Estate; that as a result of the accident, he suffered 70% disability and an amount of Rs.2,52,155.90, including compensation and interest, was paid to him as per Ext.P1 Agreement dated 31.03.2004 in Form K under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923; that since the Respondent No.1 was out of employment for 29.08.2000 to 02.04.2001, he was provided employment in the factory as a Watcher on a compassionate ground, as the amount of compensation was not paid to him and on payment of compensation on 31.03.2024, he was not offered temporary work considering his permanent total disablement; and that though disciplinary action was taken against the Respondent No.1 and another Watcher in October 2003 alleging theft of irrigation from the factory and both the workers were found guilty in the domestic enquiry, the other worker alone was dismissed from service and no punishment was imposed on Respondent No.1 as he was only a temporary worker.

The legality of the domestic enquiry was considered as a preliminary issue and as per the Order dated 11.03.2011, it was found that the finding of the Enquiry Officer is perverse and declined to accept the Enquiry Report. Thereafter, the Petitioner was given the opportunity to adduce fresh evidence and prove the charge of misconduct. On the side of the Management, MWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exts.M1 to M3 & M4 series were marked. On the side of Respondent No.1, he was examined as WW1.

In Ext.P4 Award, the Labour Court formulated three points for consideration – (1) Whether Respondent No.1 was a worker and if so, he is entitled to raise an industrial dispute? (2) Whether denial of employment to Respondent No.1 is justifiable? (3) What are the reliefs the Respondent No.1 is entitled to? The Labour Court found all the points in favour of the Respondent No.1 and accordingly passed Ext.P4 Award ordering reinstatement of the Respondent No.1 with 25% of back wages from 01.04.2004

I heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Sri. Jai Mohan, and the learned Counsel for Respondent No.1, Sri. P.K. Ramkumar.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Labour Court acted in an illegal and perverse manner by holding that the Petitioner adopted unfair labour practice by deploying the Respondent No.1 as temporary and continued such for years with the object of declining the status and privileges of a permanent workman. The jurisdiction of the Labour Court is confined to the dispute referred to it and the Labour Court cannot travel beyond the reference and enter a finding on issues which are not referred to it. Learned Counsel relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pottery Mazdoor Panchayat v. Perfect Pottery Co. Ltd. and Another [(1979) 3 SCC 762] and State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. Om Prakash Sharma [(2006) 5 SCC 123] and the decision of the Delhi High Court in Cement Corp. of India Ltd. v. Prakash Veer Tomar and Others [2024 SCC OnLine Del 4659] in support of this contention. Learned Counsel further contended that the Labour Court acted illegally in considering the legality of the disciplinary proceedings when the Petitioner had not issued any order imposing punishment against the Respondent No.1 pursuant to the domestic enquiry conducted by the Petitioner. Since the Respondent No.1 was not fit for employment in the post which he was holding before the accident, he was allowed to continue as a Watcher on compassionate grounds till the payment of compensation to him. Labour Court ought not to have ordered reinstatement of the Respondent No.1, when he was not fit for employment in the post which he was holding before the accident. Since the Labour Court found that the Respondent No.1 had been employed elsewhere after 01.04.2004, the Labour Court ought not have ordered to pay 25% back wages. Learned Counsel relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Talwara Cooperative Credit and Service Society Limited v. Sushil Kumar [(2008) 9 SCC 486] in support of this contention. Learned Counsel further contended that the Respondent No.1 is not entitled to get any wages after the Ext.P4 Award, since the stay of the Ext.P4 Award as per the Interim Order dated 29.01.2014 was only for one month. The Respondent No.1 was free to execute the Award after the said period. No Application under Section 17B of the ID Act was filed. An affidavit was filed belatedly on 23.07.2020, though the Writ Petition was filed in the year 2014. Even after the filing of the Affidavit, the Respondent No.1 did not bring up the Writ Petition to pass an Order under Section 17B of the ID Act. Learned Counsel relied on the Division Bench decision of this Court in The Manager, Arrapetta Estate, Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. v. Smt. Suseela [2020:KER:17719] in support of his contention. Learned Counsel concluded his arguments praying to allow the Writ Petition setting aside Ext.P4 Award.

Per contra, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 contended that the scope of interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the Award under the ID Act is very limited. This Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with Ext.P4 Award as it does not suffer from patent illegality or perversity. Respondent No.1 was admittedly employed as a Watcher when he was denied employment. Respondent No.1 continued employment under the Petitioner even after suffering disability after the accident as a Security Guard. The payment of compensation for employment injury has nothing to do with the employment of the Respondent No.1 as a Security Guard. He was denied employment illegally. The Labour Court rightly set aside the Enquiry. As per the Award, the Respondent No.1 is liable to be reinstated as a Security Guard. Respondent No.1 is entitled to get full wages after the date of Ext.P4 Award of reinstatement under Section 17B. Respondent No.1 has affirmed in the Affidavit that he had not been employed elsewhere after the Award, which is not denied by the Petitioner by filing a Counter Affidavit. It is well settled that the Writ Petition can be considered only after consideration of the claim under Section 17B of the ID Act. Learned Counsel concluded his arguments praying to allow the claim of the Respondent No.1 under Section 17B of the ID Act and to dismiss the Writ Petition confirming Ext.P4 Award.

I have considered the rival contentions.

In Pottery Mazdoor Panchayat (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an Industrial Tribunal derives its jurisdiction from the terms of reference and it cannot go beyond those terms; and that when the terms of reference were confined to adjudication on the validity of closure of the industrial unit, the Tribunal could not adjudicate on the issue whether there was any closure at all. In Om Prakash Sharma (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in cases where the Labour Court exceeds the terms of reference, the award is deemed to suffer from lack of jurisdiction. Following these decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Delhi High Court in Prakash Veer Tomar (supra) held that when the terms of reference pertain to the adjudication on the issue of regularisation of the employees, it does not encompass any reference for adjudication on the issue of retrenchment compensation and the Tribunal transgressed the terms of reference by adjudicating the issue of retrenchment compensation. As rightly contended by the Counsel for the Petitioner, the finding of the Labour Court that the Petitioner adopted unfair labour practice by deploying the Respondent No.1 as temporary and continued such for years with the object of declining the status and privileges of a permanent workman is beyond the scope of the issue referred to the Labour Court, that is, whether the denial of employment to the Respondent No.1 is justifiable. The issue whether the deployment of the Respondent No.1 as temporary amounts to unfair labour practice does not come within the scope of the terms of reference to the Labour Court.

Admittedly, the Petitioner denied work to the Respondent No.1 with effect from 01.04.2004. The Petitioner has no case that the denial of employment is on account of the finding of guilt in the domestic enquiry. No order of dismissal/removal was passed by the Petitioner. The punishment of dismissal from service based on the domestic enquiry was imposed on the other worker on 13.04.2005, whereas the Respondent No.1 was denied employment from 01.04.2004. This would show that the denial of employment to the Respondent No.1 was not based on the findings in the Enquiry Report. In such a case, the Labour Court should not have considered the legality of the domestic enquiry. Labour Court is to consider the legality of the enquiry only if the denial of employment is by way of punishment based on the findings in the Enquiry Report. Hence, the consideration of the legality of the domestic enquiry by the Labour Court was quite unwarranted. Since the Respondent No.1 was denied employment not on the basis of the charge of theft proved in the Enquiry Report, there was no need to give any opportunity to the Petitioner to prove the charge before the Labour Court, after setting aside the Enquiry Report. In Ext.P3 Written Statement also, the Petitioner has no case that the charge of theft against the Respondent No.1 is proved and hence the Petitioner is justified to deny employment to the Respondent No.1 by way of punishment. Even before this Court also, the Counsel for the Petitioner does not have a case that the charge of theft is proved and hence the denial of employment is imposed by way of punishment. The Labour Court failed to consider the issue of justifiability of the denial of employment to the Respondent No.1 in the right perspective. In normal case, Ext.P4 Award is liable to be set aside and the Labour Court is liable to be directed to consider the issue again. But here in this case, the denial of employment was with effect from 01.04.2004, Ext.P4 Award ordering reinstatement was passed on 03.07.2013 and this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P4 Award has been pending before this Court for the last more than 12 years. It is seen that the Respondent No.1 was aged 33 years on the date of the accident on 29.08.2000 and hence he has almost reached the age of superannuation now. There is no point in ordering reinstatement of the Respondent No.1 in service now. In such case, it is for this Court to mould the reliefs invoking Section 11A of the ID Act, if it is found that the denial of employment to Respondent No.1 by the Petitioner is unjustified. This Court deems it fit to consider the justifiability of the denial of employment to Respondent No.1 by the Petitioner on the basis of the admitted facts and materials on record in the light of the contentions of the parties.

The contention of the Counsel for the Petitioner is that the Respondent No.1 was allowed to work as a Watcher on compassionate grounds till the payment of compensation for the employment injury and on payment of the compensation on 31.03.2004, he was not allowed to continue with effect from 01.04.2004, as the reinstatement of the Respondent No.1 to the post held before the accident was impossible on account of his disability. I am unable to accept this contention. There is no quarrel for the parties with respect to the employment of the Respondent No.1 in the factory of the Petitioner, the occurrence of the accident on 29.08.2000, the amputation of the right hand of the Respondent No.1, the disability caused to the Respondent No.1 and subsequent employment. Admittedly, the Petitioner denied the employment of Watcher to the Respondent No.1 with effect from 01.04.2004. Even going by the period of employment admitted by the Petitioner, the Respondent No.1 had been working as Watcher for the period from 02.04.2001 to 31.03.2004 for wages paid by the Petitioner. The Petitioner has no case that the Respondent No.1 was not fit to work as a Watcher. It could not be termed as a compassionate appointment to work till the payment of compensation for employment injury suffered by the Respondent No.1. The payment of compensation for the employment injury suffered by the Respondent No.1 while he had been working as a factory worker, will not disqualify him from continuing as a Watcher in the same establishment. The payment of compensation for such employment injury has nothing to do with the continuance of the Respondent No.1 as Watcher under the Petitioner. Hence, I find that the Petitioner denied employment as the Watcher to the Respondent No.1 without any justifiable reason. Since reinstatement is not possible at this distance of time, the Petitioner is liable to be ordered to pay compensation to the Respondent No.1.

^15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, especially taking into account the employment of the Respondent No.1 as Watcher for a short period from 2001 to 2004, I deem it fit to award compensation payable to the Respondent No.1 as Rs.80,000/-.

^16. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside Ext.P4 Award and ordering the Petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.80,000/- to the Respondent No.1 as compensation for denial of employment, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the Judgment. If the said amount is not paid within a period of two months as aforesaid, the same shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from today till the date of payment.