IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1931 WA.No. 1209 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.411/2000 Dated 09/01/2008 .................... APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------- P.A.HAMZA, AGED 44 YEARS, SON OF K.O.ABDULLA HAJI, PATHIL HOUSE, VANDANAM, P.O., ALAPPUZHA.5 C/O H.B.SHENOY, GENERAL SECRETARY, COCHIN LABOUR UNION, 'VATGAL' KRISHNASWAMY ROAD, COCHIN 35. BY ADV. SRI.H.B.SHENOY SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY SRI.THOMAS P.MAKIL SMT.LAKSHMI B.SHENOY SRI.ABU MATHEW SRI.SOBHAN GEORGE RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 1ST RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, REP. BY THE REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, GEO TOWERS, PALLIMUKKU, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682 016. 2. THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM. BY SRI.V.V.SIDHARTHAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------------- W.A.No. 1209 of 2008 -------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2010. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair , J. The second respondent in the writ petition is the appellant. The writ petition was filed by the first respondent herein challenging Ext.P3 award of the Industrial Tribunal, Kollam. The brief facts of the case are the following. 2. The appellant was engaged as peon on casual basis by Alappuzha branch of the first respondent bank. His service was terminated with effect from 2.12.1991. The appellant raised an industrial dispute under 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act before the concerned Conciliation Officer. The matter was referred for adjudication on failure of the conciliation. 2. The issue referred was : “Whether the action of the management of Central Bank of India in terminating the services of Sri. P.A.Hamza wef 2.12.1991 and refusing to consider him for re-employment is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled and from which date?” W.A. No. 1209 of 2008 2 3. The Tribunal after taking note of the evidence, took the view that the worker has worked for more than 240 days and therefore his retrenchment was bad. So it was ordered to absorb him in regular establishment without test and interview. The management challenged the award before this Court. The learned single Judge found that even going by the evidence tendered by the appellant, he has not worked for 240 days during an year. The workman claimed that he worked for 240 days between 1.7.1989 and 30.6.1990. But the management produced the register of casual employees for the relevant period and proved that he has worked only for 189 days. So, the worker failed to establish that he has worked for more than 240 days in a calender year. In view of the said finding, the learned single Judge took the view that the finding of the Tribunal to the contrary is untenable and perverse and so, the writ petition was allowed. 4. We heard the learned counsel on both sides. Going by the reasoning of the learned single Judge, we find nothing W.A. No. 1209 of 2008 3 wrong with the conclusion that the worker has failed to prove that he has worked for more than 240 days in a calender year. The said finding is based on sound reasoning. We agree with the reasons and conclusions of the learned single Judge. We find no reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal. We also notice that the rights which flowed from the Sasthri Award have been saved by the learned single Judge. In the result, the writ appeal is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR Judge P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge vps W.A. No. 1209 of 2008 4