IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2008 / 17TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 23920 of 2008(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------------- K.P.R.JAYAKRISHNAN, PROPRIETOR, KANAKA JEWELLERY, PARRY & CO.JUNCTION, (CONVENT ROAD), KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.WILSON URMESE RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. K.BALAKRISHNAN, KRISHNA MANDIRAM, ASRAMAM, KOLLAM - 691 001. 2. THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, KOLLAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. I.V. PRAMOD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.23920 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges Ext.P2 order of the Appellate Authority under the Shops and Commercial Establishments Act (the Shops Act for short) in S.A.No.9 0f 2000 filed by the 1st respondent against the petitioner stating that the service of the 1st respondent has been dispensed with without assigning any reason. 2. The petitioner herein who was the opposite party in the S.A. took the contention that the 1st respondent was not an employee of his shop, but he was only employed as a domestic servant at his home. The Appellate Authority after considering the evidence adduced by both sides, came to the conclusion that the evidence adduced by the 1st respondent was believable. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent held that the petitioner herein dispensed with the services of the 1st respondent without any reasonable cause. Accordingly the 2nd respondent directed the petitioner to pay a compensation amounting to Rs.65,000/- to W.P.(c)No.23920/08 2 the 1st respondent in lieu of reinstatement. This order is under challenge before me at the instance of the petitioner employer. According to him, the 2nd respondent misdirected himself in finding that it was the duty of the petitioner to prove that the 1st respondent was a domestic servant by producing documentary evidence or witnesses. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was the duty of the workman to prove that he was actually employed by the petitioner in the petitioner's Shop and not the other way round. He also disputes the monthly salary claimed by the 1st respondent before the 2nd respondent. 3. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. While dealing with such cases, I must remind myself that my jurisdiction in interfering with orders of the Appelalte Authority under the Shops Act is a very limited jurisdiction to examine whether the decision making process itself is valid. I cannot re-appreciate evidence and come to a different conclusion from that of the Appellate Authority unless I find that the conclusion on the basis of the evidence before the Authority is perverse. W.P.(c)No.23920/08 3 4. In this case, the 1st respondent adduced evidence before the 2nd respondent to the effect that he was actually employed by the petitioner in the Jewellery shop of the petitioner. He also examined a witness stated to be an independent witness, who deposed to the effect that the 1st respondent was actually an employee of the petitioner in his shop. The 2nd respondent came to the finding that since the petitioner's shop is one covered under the Shops Act, he could have proved that the 1st respondent was not an employee of his shop by producing the statutory registers, which he is manadatorily expected to maintain as per the Shops Act. The 2nd respondent drew an adverse inference from non-production of those records, which is what is now termed by the petitioner as a finding that it was for the petitioner to prove that the workman was not an employee of the petitioner. The petitioner had not produced any evidence other than examining himself as a witness. The Appellate Authority considered the evidence of both sides and believed the evidence of the 1st respondent workman. The fact that the petitioner had a Jewelery shop is admitted. The workman claimed that he was employed in that shop. The petitioner contended that the workman was only a W.P.(c)No.23920/08 4 domestic help. In such circumstances the petitioner could have produced statutory registers to prove that the workman's name does not find a place therein. This only had been stated by the Appellate Authority. There is nothing perverse whatsoever in the same. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the challenge against Ext.P2 and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.23920/08 5