Kerala High Court
The Managing Director, Kerala State … vs Baburaj.K.P on 28 January, 2025
1
W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 8TH MAGHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 6153 OF 2019
PETITIONERS:
1 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION FOR FISHERIES
DEVELOPMENT (MATSYAFED), KAMALESWARAM, MANACADU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695009.
2 THE MANAGER, MATSYAFED NET FACTORY,
DR.SALIM ALI ROAD, COCHIN-682 018.
BY ADV T.P.PRADEEP
RESPONDENTS:
1 JOB YESUDAS.V.M., VALLANATTU HOUSE,
KUMBALANGHI P.O., KOCHI-682 007.
2 THE PRESIDING OFFICER,
LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM-682 018.
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR
SMT.A.K.PREETHA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.01.2025,
ALONG WITH WP(C).6022/2019, 6149/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT
ON 28.01.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 8TH MAGHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 6022 OF 2019
PETITIONERS:
1 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION FOR FISHERIES
DEVELOPMENT (MATSYAFED), KAMALESWARAM, MANACADU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695009.
2 THE MANAGER, MATSYAFED NET FACTORY,
DR.SALIM ALI ROAD, COCHIN-682018.
BY ADV T.P.PRADEEP
RESPONDENTS:
1 JOSEPH PAYAS T.G., THATTASSERY HOUSE,
NETTOOR, COCHIN-682040.
2 THE PRESIDING OFFICER,
LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM-682018.
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR
SMT.A.K.PREETHA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.01.2025,
ALONG WITH WP(C).6153/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
28.01.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 8TH MAGHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 6149 OF 2019
PETITIONERS:
1 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE
FEDERATION FOR FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT(MATSYAFED)
KAMALESWARAM, MANACADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 009.
2 THE MANAGER, MATSYAFED NET FACTORY,
DR.SALIM ALI ROAD, COCHIN - 682 018.
BY ADV T.P.PRADEEP
RESPONDENTS:
1 BABURAJ.K.P., KUTHOLIPARAMBIL, VANIYAKAD,
MANNAM P.O., NORTH PARUR-683 520.
2 THE PRESIDING OFFICER,
LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM-682 018.
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR
SMT.A.K.PREETHA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.01.2025,
ALONG WITH WP(C).6153/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
28.01.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
4
W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 8TH MAGHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 6137 OF 2019
PETITIONERS:
1 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE
FEDERATION FOR FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT(MATSYAFED),
KAMALESWARAM, MANACADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 009.
2 THE MANAGER, MATSYAFED NET FACTORY,
DR.SALIM ALI ROAD, COCHIN - 682 018.
BY ADV T.P.PRADEEP
RESPONDENTS:
1 SHIBU P.C., PEEDIAKKAPARAMBIL,
EDAKOCHI P.O., COCHIN - 682 006.
2 THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM - 682 018.
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR
SMT.A.K.PREETHA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.01.2025,
ALONG WITH WP(C).6153/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
28.01.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
5
W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 8TH MAGHA, 1946
WP(C) NO.6104 OF 2019
PETITIONERS:
1 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION FOR FISHERIES
DEVELOPMENT (MATSYAFED), KAMALESWARAM, MANACAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695009.
2 THE MANAGER, MATSYAFED NET FACTORY,
DR.SALIM ALI ROAD, COCHIN-682018.
BY ADV T.P.PRADEEP
RESPONDENTS:
1 ASHRAF P.M., POTTAPARAMBU,
VENNALA P.O., KOCHI-682025.
2 THE PRESIDING OFFICER,
LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM-682018.
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR
SMT.A.K.PREETHA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.01.2025,
ALONG WITH WP(C).6153/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
28.01.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
6
W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 8TH MAGHA, 1946
WP(C) NO.6084 OF 2019
PETITIONERS:
1 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION FOR FISHERIES
DEVELOPMENT(MATSYAFED), KAMALESWARAM, MANACADU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 009.
2 THE MANAGER, MATSYAFED NET FACTORY,
DR. ALI ROAD, COCHIN-682 018.
BY ADV.T.P.PRADEEP
RESPONDENTS:
1 JOSE.L.L., S.M. SADANAM, ARUVIKKARA P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 564.
2 THE PRESIDING OFFICER,
LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM-682 018.
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR
SMT.A.K.PREETHA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.01.2025,
ALONG WITH WP(C).6153/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
28.01.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
7
W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 8TH MAGHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 11174 OF 2020
PETITIONER:
K.P.BABURAJ, AGED 52 YEARS,
S/O. PARAMESWARAN, KUTHOLIPARAMBIL,
VANIYAKAD, MANNANAM P.O., NORTH PARUR,
ERNAKULAM-683520.
BY ADVS.
C.ANIL KUMAR
SMT.A.K.PREETHA
RESPONDENTS:
1 MATSYAFED, KALALESWARAM, MANACAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695009, REPRESENTED
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2 MANAGER, MATSYAFED NET FACTORY,
DR.SALIM ALI ROAD, KOCHI -682018.
3 LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682018.
BY ADV SRI.T.P.PRADEEP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.01.2025,
ALONG WITH WP(C).6153/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
28.01.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
8
W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 8TH MAGHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 11242 OF 2020
PETITIONER:
SHIBU P.C., AGED 52 YEARS,
S/O.CHIDAMBARAM, PEEDIKAKKAPARAMBIL,
EDKOCHI, KOCHI-682 006.
BY ADVS.
C.ANIL KUMAR
SMT.A.K.PREETHA
RESPONDENTS:
1 MATSYAFED, KALALESWARAM, MANACAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 009, REPRESENTED BY
ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2 MANAGER, MATSYAFD NET FACTORY,
DR.SALIM ALI ROAD, KOCHI-682 018.
3 LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 018.
BY ADV.SRI.T.P.PRADEEP, SC, MATSYAFED
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.01.2025,
ALONG WITH WP(C).6153/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
28.01.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
9
W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 8TH MAGHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 11808 OF 2020
PETITIONER:
P.M.ASHRAF, AGED 54 YEARS,
S/O.MOHAMMED, POTTAPARAMBU HOUSE,
VENNALA.P.O., KOCHI-682028.
BY ADV SMT.A.K.PREETHA
RESPONDENTS:
1 MATSYAFED, KALALESWARAM, MANACAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695009, REPRESENTED
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2 MANAGER, MATSYAFED NET FACTORY,
DR.SALIM ALI ROAD, KOCHI-682018.
3 LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682018.
BY ADV SRI.T.P.PRADEEP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.01.2025,
ALONG WITH WP(C).6153/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
28.01.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
10
W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 8TH MAGHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 11813 OF 2020
PETITIONER:
JOSEPH PAYAS T.G., AGED 53 YEARS,
S/O.JOHN JOSEPH, THATTASSERY HOUSE,
NETTOOR P.O., KOCHI-682040.
BY ADVS.
C.ANIL KUMAR
SMT.A.K.PREETHA
RESPONDENTS:
1 MATSYAFED, KALALESWARAM, MANACAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695009,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2 MANAGER, MATSYAFED NET FACTORY,
DR.SALIM ALI ROAD, KOCHI-682018.
3 LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682018.
BY ADV. SRI.T.P.PRADEEP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.01.2025,
ALONG WITH WP(C).6153/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
28.01.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
11
W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 8TH MAGHA, 1946
WP(C) NO.11839 OF 2020
PETITIONER:
JOSE L.L., AGED 48 YEARS,
S/O.K.P. LEVI, RESIDING AT S.M. SADANAM,
MYALMOODU, ARUVIKKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 564.
BY ADV A.K.PREETHA
RESPONDENTS:
1 MATSYAFED, KALALESWARAM, MANACAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 009, REPRESENTED
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2 MANAGER, MATSYAFED NET FACTORY,
DR.SALIM ALI ROAD, KOCHI-682 018.
3 LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 018.
BY ADV SRI.T.P.PRADEEP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.01.2025,
ALONG WITH WP(C).6153/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
28.01.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
12
W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 8TH MAGHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 18459 OF 2020
PETITIONER:
JOB YESUDAS, AGED 54 YEARS,
S/O.LATE V.L.MATHEW, VALLANATT HOUSE,
KUMBALANGHI P.O, KOCHI-682007.
BY ADVS.
A.K.PREETHA
SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 MATSYAFED, MANACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695009,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2 MANAGER, MATSYAFED NET FACTORY,
DR.SALIM ALI ROAD, KOCHI-682018.
3 LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682018.
BY ADV SRI.T.P.PRADEEP, SC, MATSYAFED
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.01.2025,
ALONG WITH WP(C).6153/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
28.01.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
13
W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217
JUDGMENT
[WP(C) Nos.6153/2019, 6022/2019, 6149/2019, 6137/2019,
6104/2019, 6084/2019, 11174/2020, 11242/2020, 11808/2020,
11813/2020, 11839/2020 and 18459/2020]
These writ petitions pertain to an industrial dispute raised
by the workers employed with the Matsyafed in Labour Court,
Ernakulam. W.P(C) Nos.6022, 6084, 6104, 6137, 6149 and
6153 of 2019 are filed by the Management against the workmen
challenging the award issued by the Labour Court and W.P(C)
Nos.11174, 11242, 11808, 11813, 11839 and 18459 of 2020
are filed by the workmen against the findings in the very same
award as regards their claim for back wages.
2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of these
writ petitions as culled out from W.P(C) No.6022 of 2019 are as
follows:
The 1st petitioner is the Managing Director of the Matsyafed
and the 2nd petitioner is the Manager of the Net Factory run by
the Matsyafed, an Apex Society under the Kerala Co-operative
Societies Act, 1969. The 1st respondent was engaged as an
14
W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217“operator” in the Net Factory of the petitioner for a period of
179 days purely on contract basis, as seen from Ext.P2
agreement entered into between the Management and the 1st
respondent workman. Pursuant to certain complaints raised by
the workman, the District Labour Officer issued Ext.P3 dated
27.04.2009 to the 1st petitioner herein, directing the workmen
to be extended same wages as that of Operator Grade-II. This
was followed with Ext.P4, minutes of the meeting between the
Management and certain workmen, agreeing to implement the
directives to be issued by the Management. On the basis of the
afore, Ext.P5 was issued by the Managing Director dated
24.02.2010 extending the wages of Operator Grade-III to the
workmen like 1st respondent herein and deciding to extend the
scale of Operator Grade-II on completion of 10 years’ service.
Acting on Ext.P5, the 2nd petitioner cancelled the agreements
executed by the workmen like the 1st respondent herein and
extended the wages under the Kerala Casual Temporary and
Badli Workers (Wages) Act, 1989.
15
W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217
3. However, the 1st petitioner by Ext.P7 sought to
retrench the workmen who were appointed pursuant to Ext.P6,
essentially on account of the rise in the cost of raw materials,
which was allegedly affecting the functioning of the factory,
which could be reduced only by reducing the
administrative/production cost. The workmen, like the 1st
respondent in this writ petition, filed a claim under Section
2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred
to as the “I.D. Act“), before the Labour Court. The Management
filed a written statement at Ext.P9.
4. The Labour Court framed the question as to whether
retrenchment was justifiable or not. By Ext.P10, the Tribunal
found the retrenchment without justification and hence,
directed reinstatement of the workmen. The claim for back
wages was disallowed, however, extending continuity of service
to the workmen like the 1st respondent.
5. It is in the afore circumstances these writ petitions
are filed by the Management and the Workmen as noticed
16
W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217
above.
6. I have heard Sri.T.P. Pradeep, the learned counsel for
the Management and Sri.Anil Kumar, the learned counsel for the
workmen.
7. Sri.Pradeep, the learned counsel for the Management,
would contend that the findings in Ext.P10 award are without
justification and arbitrary. He would contend that no notice is
required under Section 25N of the I.D. Act, that the workmen
have accepted the categorization as “badli workers”, never
challenging the orders issued in that regard and hence, the
Labour Court went wrong in finding that retrenchment without
notice was incorrect. In any event, he states that the Labour
Court ought not to have ordered reinstatement. He relied on
various judgments in support of the afore contentions.
8. Per contra, Sri.Anil Kumar, on behalf of the workmen,
invited the attention of this Court to the requirement of workers
as highlighted in the petition filed before the Labour Court,
which was not disputed, as well as the regularization of various
17
W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217
persons after the retrenchment in question.
9. I have considered the rival submissions and the
connected records.
10. The Labour Court in Ext.P10 has found that the
retrenchment was without following the provisions of the
statute. The provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the I.D. Act,
were relied on from the side of Management to contend that the
workmen cannot claim reinstatement. The afore provision
reads as under;
“[(oo) “retrenchment” means the termination by the
employer of the service of a workman for any reason
whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way
of disciplinary action but does not include-
……………
[(bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result
of the non-renewal of the contract of employment between
the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of
such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that
behalf contained therein; or]”
True, termination of services of the workmen as a result of non-
renewal of the contract of employment or termination of the
same does not amount to retrenchment. The Labour Court
18
W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217
referred to the proceedings of the District Labour Officer and the
connected records and found the termination of the workmen
as not on account of non-renewal of the contract. The afore
findings rendered by the Labour Court, with reference to the
documents produced, cannot be found as incorrect.
11. The Labour Court also referred to the provisions of
Section 25G of the I.D. Act and found that certain juniors to the
workmen before the Labour Court were being retained, which is
nothing but “pick and choose” method and the same amounts
to unfair labour practice. In the light of the afore, the next issue
to be noticed is that the Labour Court found infringement of the
provisions of Section 25H of the I.D. Act. This Court further
notices that the reason stated for retrenchment was the alleged
loss suffered by the company. The Management took a U-turn
in the written statement and cited various other reasons like
lack of discipline, etc., on the part of workmen. This itself shows
that, as rightly found by the Labour Court, the management was
driving the workmen to a tight spot. The Labour Court also
19
W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217
verified the financials of the petitioner company to find the same
to be a profitable one. It also shows that the Management was
taking a hostile attitude towards the workmen.
12. In this connection, the learned counsel for the
petitioners relied on Karnataka State Road Transport
Corporation and another v. S.G. Kotturappa and another
[(2005) 3 SCC 409] to contend that the workmen concerned
were badli workers and hence not enjoying the status of a civil
post. However, I notice that in the case at hand, apart from the
fact that the workmen were extended their wages under the
Badli Act, no proper statutory provisions are referred to for the
retrenchment. He also relied on Haryana State Electronics
Development Corporation Ltd. v. Mamni [(2006) 9 SCC
434] and State of Uttarakhand and another v. Raj Kumar
[(2019) 14 SCC 353], Ranbir Singh v. Executive Engineer
P.W.D [2021 (5) KLT online 1104] to contend that the
reinstatement ought not to have been ordered. But in the case
at hand, this Court notices that the petitioners have contended
20
W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217
that even after retrenchment, substantial number of fresh
appointments have been effected. In such circumstances, the
direction for reinstatement cannot be interfered with. He would
also refer to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this
Court in HLL Life Care Ltd v. M/s. Sapthazeal Private Ltd.
[2024 (3) KLT 488] in support of the contention that the
Management has no duty to follow the directives of the District
Labour Officer. However, in the case at hand, I notice that the
proceedings of the District Labour Officer were not the sole
reason for issuing Ext.P10 award. The Labour Court has
categorically found the refusal to follow provisions of the statute
while ordering retrenchment and other contributing factors.
Hence, the afore decisions may not help the learned counsel for
the petitioners.
12. On the whole, I am of the opinion that the findings
rendered by the Labour Court challenged at the instance of the
Management cannot be said to be incorrect or arbitrary.
21
W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217
13. The remaining question arising for consideration is
with reference to the six writ petitions filed at the instance of
the workmen. They contend that the Labour Court, having found
that the retrenchment was illegal while ordering reinstatement,
back wages ought to have been extended to the workmen. The
learned counsel Sri.Anil Kumar relied on Surendra Kumar
Verma and others v. The Central Government Industrial
Tribunal Cum Labour Court, New Delhi and Another
[1980 (4) SCC 443] and M/s. Hindustan Tin Works Pvt.
Ltd. v. The Employees of M/s. Hindustan Tin Works Pvt.
Ltd. And others [1979 (2) SCC 80] in support of the afore
contention. The Apex Court in Surendra Kumar Verma
(supra) has found as under;
” 6. …………..Plain common sense dictates that the removal
of an order terminating the services of workmen must
ordinarily lead to the reinstatement of the services of the
workmen. It is as if the order has never been and so it must
ordinarily lead to back wages too. But there may be
exceptional circumstances which make it impossible or wholly
inequitable vis a vis the employer and workmen to direct
reinstatement with full back wages. For instance, the industry
might have closed down or might be in severe financial
22
W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217doldrums; the workmen concerned might have secured better
or other employment elsewhere and so on. In such situations,
there is a vestige of discretion left in the Court to make
appropriate consequential orders. The Court may deny the
relief of reinstatement where reinstatement is impossible
because the industry has closed own. The Court may deny
the relief of award of full back wages where that would place
an impossible burden on the employer. In such and other
exceptional cases the Court may mould the relief but,
ordinarily the relief to be awarded must be reinstatement with
full back wages. That relief must be awarded where no special
impediment in the way of awarding the relief is clearly shown.
True, occasional hardship may be caused to an employer but
we must remember that, more often than not, comparatively
far greater hardship is certain to be caused to the workmen
if the relief is denied than to the employer if the relief is
granted.”
To the same effect is the judgment in M/s.Hindustan Tin
(supra).
14. In the case at hand, the Labour Court found the
retrenchment to be quite arbitrary. The company was also found
to be making a profit. The delay in disposal of the industrial
dispute is also not attributable to the workmen. Therefore, in
my opinion, the workmen would be entitled to back wages.
23
W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217
Resultantly, the afore writ petitions are disposed of as
under:
i. W.P(C) Nos.6022, 6084, 6104, 6137, 6149 and 6153
of 2019 filed by the Management are dismissed.
ii. W.P(C) Nos.11174, 11242, 11808, 11813, 11839 and
18459 of 2020 filed by the workmen are allowed. It is
declared that the workmen/petitioners in these writ
petitions would be entitled to back wages apart from
reinstatement and continuity of service.
Sd/-
ln
24
W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6022/2019
PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.12.2004.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ONE OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN
THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND THE 2ND PETITIONER ON
29.12.2006.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 27.4.2009 OF
THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES DATED 28.12.2009.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.02.2010 ISSUED BY
THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01.03.2010 ISSUED BY
THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.02.2011 ISSUED BY
THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON AWARD DATED 07.11.2018
IN ID 42/2013.
25
W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6149/2019
PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
01/01/2005.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ONE OF THE AGREEMENT
EXECUTED BETWEEN THE 1ST RESPONDENT
AND THE 2ND PETITIONER ON 28/08/2009.EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
27/4/2009 OF THE DISTRICT LABORU
OFFICER, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES DATED
28/12/2009.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
24/02/2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
01/03/2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
26/02/2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY
THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON AWARD DATED
07/11/2018 IN ID 39/2013.
26
W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6137/2019
PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12/07/2000.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ONE OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN
THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND THE 2ND PETITIONER ON
21/08/2009.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 27/4/2009 OF THE
DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, ERNAKULAM.EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES DATED 28/12/2009.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24/02/2010 ISSUED BY THE
1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01/03/2010 ISSUED BY THE
2ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26/02/2011 ISSUED BY THE
1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON AWARD DATED 07/11/2018
IN ID 43/2013.
27
W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6104/2019
PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01/10/04.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ONE OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED
BETWEEN THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND THE 2ND
PETITIONER ON 28/08/2009.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE TRUE COPY OF THE
COMMUNICATION DATED 27/04/2009 OF THE
DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, ERNAKULAM.EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES
DATED 28/12/2009.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24/02/2010
ISSUED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01/03/2010
ISSUED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26/02/2011
ISSUED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY
THE RESPONDENTS.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON AWARD DATED
07/11/2018 IN ID 38/2013.
28
W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6084/2019
PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.07.2000.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ONE OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED
BETWEEN THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND THE 2ND
PETITIONER ON 28.02.2007.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
27.04.2009 OF THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER,
ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES DATED 28.12.2009.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.02.2010
ISSUED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1.3.2010 ISSUED
BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.2.2011 ISSUED
BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY
THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON AWARD DATED 7.11.2018
IN ID 41/2013.
29
W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11174/2020
PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM STATEMENT FILED BY THE
PETITIONER IN ID NO.39/2013.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY
RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 IN ID NO.39/2013.EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON AWARD DATED
07/11/2018 PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM IN ID NOS.38/2013 TO 43/2013.
30
W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11242/2020
PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM STATEMENT FILED BY THE
PETITIONER IN I.D NO.43/2013.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY
RESPONDENTS A AND 2 IN I.D NO.43/2013.EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON AWARD DATED
07/11/2018 PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM IN I.D.NOS.38/2013 TO 43/2013.
31
W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11808/2020
PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON AWARD DATED
07.11.2018 PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM IN I.D.NOS.38/2013 TO 43/2013.
32
W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11813/2020
PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM STATEMENT FILED BY THE
PETITIONER IN I.D.NO.42/2013.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY
RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 IN I.D.NO.42/2013.EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON AWARD DATED
07.11.2018 PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM IN I.D.NOS.38/2013 TO 43/2013.
33
W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11839/2020
PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM STATEMENT FILED BY THE
PETITIONER IN I.D. NO.41/2013.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY
RESPONDENT A AND 2 IN I.D. NO.41/2013.EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON AWARD DATED
07/11/2018 PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM IN I.D. NOS.38/2013 TO 43/2013.
34
W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18459/2020
PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM STATEMENT FILED BY THE
PETITIONER IN I.D.NO.40/2013.EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY
RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN I.D.NO.40/2013.EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON AWARD DATED
07/11/2018 PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM IN I.D.NO.NOS.38/2013 TO 43/2013.
35
W.P(C) No.6153 of 2019 and con.cases 2025:KER:6217APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6153/2019
PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ABOVE ORDER DATED
9.9.04.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ABOVE AGREEMENT
EXECUTED BETWEEN THE IST RESPONDENT AND
THE 2ND PETITIONER 5.9.2007.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
27.4.2009 OF THE DISTRICT LABOUR
OFFICER, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES DATED
28.12.2009.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.2.2010
ISSUED BY THE IST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1.3.2010
ISSUED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.2.2011
ISSUED BY THE IST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE
IST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED
BY THE PETITIONERS.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON AWARD DATED 7.11.2018
IN ID 40/2013.
