IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 8TH OCTOBER 2009 / 16TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 17559 of 2007(M) --------------------------------------- ID.13/2005 of LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- P.RAMESH, S/O.PALAPPAN, AGED 29, PIRANIVILAI HOUSE, PACODE POST, VILARANCODE TALUK, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU. BY ADVS.MR.M.H.HANIL KUMAR MR.SANU S.PANICKER RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- THE ASST.GENERAL MANAGER, (PERSONAL), AIR INDIA, UNITY COMPLEX, PALLAVARAM, CHENNAI - 43. R1 BY ADVS.MR.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA, MR.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHAN, MR.TERRY V.JAMES. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.17559/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- AWARD OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT ID. 13/05 DTD. 6.8.06. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.17559 OF 2007 (M) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P1, the award rendered by the Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court in I.D. No.13/05. The issue referred for adjudication was whether the action of the management in Air India in stopping the petitioner as a casual loader from working is justified and what relief is he entitled. The claim of the workman, as seen from the pleadings before the Labour Court was that, during the period from 8.5.2000 to 3.5.2004, he worked as Handyman for a period of 275 days and therefore he could not have been terminated otherwise in accordance with the provisions of the of the Industrial Disputes Act. 2. The contention of the management was that he was only a casual labourer and that he had worked only for 107 days. 3. Both oral and documentary evidences were adduced by both sides and the Labour Court by Ext.P1 award rejected the contentions and upheld the action of the management. It is challenging the award the writ petition is filed. WPC.No.17559/07 :2 : 4. In the nature of the claims that is raised, the whole controversy will depend upon the correctness of the finding of the Labour Court that the workman was engaged only for 107 days during the period mentioned above. A reading of paragraph 6 of the award where issue regarding the legality of termination of the workman is answered, show that though the workman claimed that he worked for 275 days, he could not produce any evidence in support of this contention. Even his witness, WW.2 had tendered evidence, which was against the case set up by the workman. Therefore, on the basis that as the workman had failed to produce sufficient materials to prove how long he worked, it was not possible to accept his contention, the Labour Court concluded that the claimant worked only for 107 days. Thereafter the Labour Court referred to the provisions of the ID Act and held that the case did not involve retrenchment as defined in the said Act. Although it was beyond the scope of the reference, still the claim of the workman for regularization also has been considered and has been negatived by the Labour Court referring to the judgment of the Apex Court, in the light of the findings as above. I see no reason to interfere with the award. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. vi (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE WPC.No.17559/07 :3 :