Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DR. E.K.RAMACHANDRAN, SUPERINTENDENT versus AMMINI K.D. SWEEPER, M.E.S.THYVALAPPIL

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


DR. E.K.RAMACHANDRAN, SUPERINTENDENT v. AMMINI K.D. SWEEPER, M.E.S.THYVALAPPIL - OP No. 13257 of 2003(C) [2006] RD-KL 2288 (1 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP No. 13257 of 2003(C)

1. DR. E.K.RAMACHANDRAN, SUPERINTENDENT
... Petitioner

Vs

1. AMMINI K.D. SWEEPER, M.E.S.THYVALAPPIL
... Respondent

2. REENA V.O., SWEEPER, M.E.S.THYVALAPPIL

3. KOMALAM K.R., NURSING ASSISTANT,

4. NASSEEMA P.R., NURSING ASSISTANT,

5. MARIAM P.P., NURSING ASSISTANT,

6. MARY VINCENT, NURSING ASSISTANT,

7. LAKSHMI P.R., NURSING ASSISTANT,

8. PHILOMINAA.M., NURSING ASSISTANT,

9. LILLY T.J., NURSING ASSISTANT,

10. LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM,

For Petitioner :SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN

For Respondent :SRI.MAJNU KOMATH

The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH

Dated :01/12/2006

O R D E R

KURIAN JOSEPH, J.

O.P.No.13257 of 2003

Dated this the 1st day of December, 2006



JUDGMENT

Ext.P1 order passed by the Labour Court, Ernakulam in C.P.No.15/1997 is under challenge. The issue considered is whether the claim petitioners are entitled to the benefits by way of holiday wages under the provisions of the Kerala Industrial Establishments (National & Festival Holidays) Act 1958. One of the main contentions taken by the petitioner is that since the petitioner had employed only less than 20 workers the Act itself is not applicable. But no such contention is seen taken in the objections in the claim petition. Not only that the evidence available on record is also against the petitioner regarding the number of workmen. The second contention is that some of the claim petitioners have already withdrawn their claim and in the case of some, they had not signed the claim petitions. On a reading of the evidence in entirety it cannot be conclusively said that the signatures were forged. Some of the workmen, true, deposed before the Labour Court that the signature shown to them were not their OP NO.13257/2003 signatures. But the contention of the workmen is that only one signature was shown to them. Be that as it may, the total amount awarded is only an amount of Rs.6734/- and that too in respect of the holidays under the provisions of the Act. There are 9 respondents also. Since the amount involved is such a paltry amount I do not think that the matter should be remitted to the Labour Court for fresh consideration. Since the main ground of attack is not available to the petitioner and since the coverage issue is not taken up before the Labour court, it is not necessary for this court to go into the various other contentions on findings of fact. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed.

(KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE)

ahg.

KURIAN JOSEPH, J.

O.P.NO.13257/2003

JUDGMENT

1st December, 2006


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.