A.O. Krishnan v. Premarajan V.P.

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V THURSDAY, THE 2[ND]DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 13TH MAGHA,1944 OP(LC) NO. 4 OF 2022 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT 292/2021 IN CP 25/2021 OF LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` A.O.KRISHNAN AGED 54 YEARS PROPRIETOR, M/S.HYGIENE CARE, THALI CENTRE BUILDING, PUTHIYAPALAM ROAD, CHALAPURAM POST, CALICUT - 673 002. BY ADV BABU CHERUKARA ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` PREMARAJAN V.P. VAPINAM THODI HOUSE, THENJIPALAM POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 673 636. BY ADVS. Preetha A.K C.ANIL KUMAR(K/000906/1993) ``` ``` THISOP(LABOURCOURT)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON 02.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` OP(LC) NO. 4 OF 2022 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner herein is the opposite party in C.P. No. 25/2021 on the file of the Labour Court, Kozhikode. This Original Petition is filed challenging Exhibit P5 and P10 orders issued by the Labour Court rejecting the request made by the petitioners to summon the Bank Managers of the various banks, wherein the employee maintains the account. 2. For the sake of ease and clarity, the parties shall be referred to as the applicant and the opposite party. 3. Exhibit P1 is the application filed by the applicant before the Labour Court. The claim raised by the applicant is for the realization of amounts that were allegedly wrongfully deducted from his salary and also the conveyance expenses. 4. It appears from the records that the applicant had filed I.A. No. 266/2021 before the Labour Court seeking issuance of directions to the opposite party to produce certain documents, including bank account statement maintained in the Union Bank of India, Palayam Branch, Kozhikode for the period from 01.04.2013 to 31.10.2020. The Labour Court allowed the said application. Thereafter, the opposite party filed I.A. No. 292/2021 seeking issuance of directions to the Bank Manager of Union Bank of India, ``` OP(LC) NO. 4 OF 2022 ``` ``` 3 ``` Palayam Branch, to appear and produce the account statement of the applicant for the period from 2010 January to 2020 December with the account opening form. The opposite party also preferred I.A. No. 293/2022, seeking to summon a certain Eldo. K.C., an employee of the opposite party, to appear and produce certain records. The Labour Court, by Ext. P5 order, which is impugned in this petition, rejected the request holding that the opposite party, having set a plea of discharge, ought to have placed the bank statements revealing the amounts paid to the employees. The Labour Court also took note of the fact that the opposite party had failed to comply with the order in I.A. No. 266/2021 requiring the opposite party to produce his Bank Statement. However, the request to summon Eldo. K.C. was allowed. The said order was issued on 05.11.2021. 5. Undeterred by the issuance of the said order and without challenging the same, the opposite party preferred I.A. No. 310/2021, seeking to summon the Managers of the Union Bank of India, Kozhikode, as well as Bangalore, to appear and produce the name and address, the account opening form and the Bank statements with the status of numerous cheques issued from 2011 to 2020. The opposite party had also preferred I.A. No. 311/2021, detailing the documents to be produced. ``` OP(LC) NO. 4 OF 2022 ``` ``` 4 ``` 6. The Labour Court, by a well-considered order, rejected the request by Ext. P10 order. It was held that the opposite party was in possession of the bank records, and it was well within his powers to summon his bank Manager and place on record material to substantiate that no amount is due to the applicant. 7. Sri. Babu Cherukara, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that the order issued by the Labour Court is illegal and arbitrary. According to the learned counsel, if the bank records, as well as the account opening forms, were summoned as requested, it would have come out in evidence that the opposite party had made all the payments due to the applicant, and no further amount is due. 8. In response, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant that the person who is pleading discharge is bound to place on record materials to substantiate his contentions. According to the learned counsel, having failed to comply with the directions in I.A. No. 266/2021, the opposite party could not have sought for summoning the bank accounts of the employee. Referring to I.A. No. 311/2021, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the attempt of the opposite party is to protract the proceedings and nothing more. The learned counsel would also refer to the law laid down by this Court in **Chelamattom Sree Krishna Swami Devaswom Trust v.** ``` OP(LC) NO. 4 OF 2022 ``` ``` 5 ``` **State of Kerala** [2022 (4) KLT 90], and it is argued that interference in the exercise of discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not warranted when interlocutory orders are challenged before this Court. 9. I have considered the submissions advanced and have perused the records. 10. I find that the opposite party is contesting the claim of the applicant for amounts deducted by the employee from salary and conveyance expenses. The opposite party is running an established business and deals in surgical items and medical equipment. As rightly held by the Labour Court, the opposite party maintains bank accounts, and as he is the one pleading discharge, it is for him to produce the accounts in his possession to prove that the amounts due to the employee has been paid and that he has not deducted any amount. 11. The Superior Courts have enshrined the principle that the power granted by Article 227 of the Constitution should be used sparingly and only in appropriate instances to keep the Subordinate Courts and Tribunals within the limits of authority rather than to correct minor errors. Unless the opposite party can demonstrate a patent perversity, a severe and evident failure of justice, or a violation of principles of natural justice, this Court will not be justified in interfering with the orders of the Subordinate Tribunals and Courts. ``` OP(LC) NO. 4 OF 2022 ``` ``` 6 ``` Furthermore, in the purported exercise of superintendence powers, this Court cannot intervene to correct simple mistakes of law or fact or simply because another view than that of the Tribunal or the court subordinate to it could have been taken. Having considered the facts and circumstances of this case from all angles, I find no error or perversity warranting interference by invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This petition is dismissed. ## **Sd/-** **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE** ``` avs ``` ``` OP(LC) NO. 4 OF 2022 ``` ``` 7 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF OP(LC) 4/2022`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`** ``` Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM PETITION NO.25/2021 OF THE LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE DATED 30/06/2021. ``` ``` Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN VERSION IN C.P.NO.25 OF 2021 OF THE LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE DATED SEPTEMBER 2021. ``` ``` Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION I.A.NO.292/21 IN C.P.NO.25 OF 2021 OF THE LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE DATED 26/10/2021. ``` ``` Exhibit P3ATRUE COPY OF THE PETITION I.A.NO.293/21 IN C.P.NO.25 OF 2021 OF THE LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE DATED 26/10/2021. ``` ``` Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT IN I.A.NO.292/21 IN C.P.NO.25 OF 2021 OF THE LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE DATED 30/10/2021. ``` - `Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN I.A.NOS.292/21 & 293/21 IN C.P.NO.25 OF 2021 OF THE LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE DATED 05/11/2021.` ``` Exhibit P6TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION I.A.NO.311/21 IN C.P.NO.25 OF 2021 OF THE LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE DATED 17/11/2021. ``` ``` Exhibit P7TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT IN I.A.NO.311 OF 2021 IN C.P.NO.25 OF 2021 OF THE LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE DATED 24/11/2021 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT. ``` ``` Exhibit P8TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION I.A.NO.310/21 IN C.P.NO.25 OF 2021 OF THE LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE DATED 17/11/2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P9TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT IN I.A.NO.310 OF 2021 IN C.P.NO.25 OF 2021 OF THE LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE DATED 6/12/2021 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT. ``` ``` OP(LC) NO. 4 OF 2022 ``` ``` 8 ``` ``` Exhibit P10TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN I.A.NOS.310.21 & 311/21 IN C.P.NO.25 OF 2021 OF THE LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE DATED 07/01/2022. ```