IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2009 / 10TH MAGHA 1930 WA.No. 228 of 2009 --------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.19811/2007 DATED 01/10/2007 .................... APPELLANTS: --------------------- 1. SALIM, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED, MUSTHAFFA, SALIM MANZIL, CHATHANPARA, THOTTAKKADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER M.S. SHAREEF, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. MOHAMMED IBRAHIM, SHAREEF MANZIL, PEROOR, VELLALLOOR VILLAGE. 2. NADEERA, W/O. SALIM, SALIM MANZIL, CHATHANPARA, THOTTAKKADU,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER M.S. SHAREEF, AGED 47 YEARS,S/O. MOHAMMED IBRAHIM, SHAREEF MANZIL, PEROOR, VELLALLOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. MR.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- SUNDARESAN, S/O. BHASKARAN, KATTIL VEEDU, VELLALLORE, PEROOR P.O., (VIA) KILIMANOOR, PIN - 695 601. BY THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/01/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. J.B.KOSHY, Ag.C.J. & V.GIRI, J. -------------------------------------- W.A.No.228 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated 30th January, 2009 JUDGMENT Koshy, Ag.C.J . Appellants/petitioners are owners of 2.10 Acres of land wherein rubber was planted. There were some industrial disputes regarding denial of work to the respondent workman and his union interfered in the matter. A police protection order was passed by this court granting protection to the employers, but at the same time observed that the respondent can raise his claims before the Labour authorities. The matter of denial of work was referred for adjudication before the Labour Court. The Labour Court found that the respondent was employed therein and on the basis of the evidence adduced before the court it was also found that his services were terminated without complying with the formalities under section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. But, considering the pleadings, the Labour Court instead of reinstatement directed to pay Rs.30,000/= as compensation . There were two workers, the respondent and his wife. The Labour Court found that his wife was not an employee. Relief was given only to the respondent. Finding of Labour Court is based on facts. The Labour Court did not award reinstatement, but, W.A.228/2009 2 only a compensation was awarded. We are of the opinion that no interference is required in the award under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned single Judge rightly rejected the claim. We see no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. It is submitted that revenue recovery proceedings are taken against the petitioners. Petitioners are permitted to pay the amount ordered by the Labour Court in three equal monthly instalments. The first instalment should be paid on or before 20.2.2009. The appeal is dismissed. J.B.KOSHY ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE V.GIRI JUDGE tks