IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER MONDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1930 W.A.No.1651 of 2008 ------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).25502/2005, DATED 22/07/2008 .................... APPELLANT/WRIT PETITIONER:- ------------------------------------------------ C.T.MAGTHEW, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S. C.K.THAVU & COMPANY, TYRE SHOP, PATTAMBI ROAD, KUNNAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:- --------------------------------------------------- 1. C.C.JOHNSON S/O.CHERUKUTTY, CHOWALLOOR HOUSE, PELAKKATTU PAYYOOR, KUNNAMKULAM. 2. SECRETARY INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD. R1 BY ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR & SRI.MANU GOVIND R2 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- H.L.Dattu,C.J. & A.K.Basheer,J. ---------------------------------------------- W.A.No.1651 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 24th November, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu,C.J. This Writ Appeal is directed against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C).No.21876 of 2008 dated 29th July, 2008. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has sustained the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad in I.D.No.56 of 2003 dated 4th December, 2004. (2) Appellant before us, is the management. After failure of conciliation proceedings, the State Government had referred the matter to the Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad for adjudication and decision. The reference was registered by the Industrial Tribunal as I.D.No.56 of 2003. The reference that was made by the State Government was: “Whether the denial of employment to Shri.C.C.Johnson by the management of C.K.Thavu & Company, Kunnamkulam is justifiable? If not what relief he is entitled to get?” (3) The Industrial Tribunal, after evaluating the entire evidence on record adduced by the parties to the lis, has come to the conclusion, that, the 1st respondent-workman was denied employment by the management with effect from 1.4.2002 onwards. Accordingly, has W.A.No.1651 of 2008 - 2 - directed the management to reinstate the workman into service with 50% back wages for the period from 1.4.2002 till the date of reinstatement into service. The Tribunal has also directed the management to pay wages to the workman for the period from 1.9.2001 to 31.3.2002. (4) Before the learned Single Judge, it was argued by the learned counsel appearing for the management, that, the direction to the management to pay wages for the period from 1.9.2001 to 31.3.2002 is beyond the scope of reference that was made by the State Government. The learned Single Judge, though agreed with the stand of the management, has not interfered with the award passed for the reasons stated by him in the course of the order. (5) The contention of the petitioner before the learned Single Judge was that the workman had abandoned the employment by absenting himself from 1.9.2001 to 31.3.2002 and, therefore, there was no denial of employment as such. It is further stated, that, the workman had absented himself from duty from 1.9.2001 in support of a strike of the workers of a sister concern. (6) The Tribunal has found, that, this contention is against Exhibit M2 letter issued by the management, that, the workman was absent for seven days in September, fourteen days in October and eighteen days in November, 2001. In the said letter, there was not even a W.A.No.1651 of 2008 - 3 - whisper with regard to the workman having participated in the strike by the workers in the sister concern. It is further stated, that, after the workman had filed a complaint before the Assistant Labour Officer, the management had filed a police complaint. The Tribunal has further noticed, that, even though the workman had denied the allegations in the show cause notice, the management, without conducting any enquiry, whatsoever, has denied the employment to the workman. According to the Industrial Tribunal, the workman could not have been terminated from service without holding an appropriate domestic enquiry. (7) The award of the Industrial Tribunal in I.D.No.56 of 2003 was the subject matter of the writ petition before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge, after going through the evidence on record and the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, is of the opinion, that, there is no perversity in the findings and conclusions reached by the Industrial Tribunal and, accordingly, has rejected the writ petition. In so far as backwages for the period 1.9.2001 to 31.3.2002 awarded by the Tribunal, the learned Judge may be taking into consideration the smallness of the amount involved, has not interfered with the finding of the Tribunal. (8) We have heard Sri.Jijo Paul, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-management and Sri.Manu Govind, learned counsel W.A.No.1651 of 2008 - 4 - appearing for the 1st respondent-workman. (9) The Industrial Tribunal, on an appreciation of the facts and the evidence on record, has come to the conclusion, that, the management, without holding an appropriate domestic enquiry, could not have been terminated the services of the workman. Further, the Industrial Tribunal has come to the conclusion, that, there is a denial of employment by the management to the workman, without there being any material on record. The award passed by the Industrial Tribunal was based on the appreciation of the facts and evidence on record. After going through the evidence on record, we are of the firm opinion, that, the findings and conclusions reached by the Industrial Tribunal cannot be characterised as perverse or arbitrary. In that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge, in our opinion, was fully justified in rejecting the writ petition filed by the management, solely on the ground, that, there is no perversity in the findings reached by the Industrial Tribunal. (10) In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion, that, the learned Single Judge has not committed any error, whatsoever, which would call for our interference in appeal. Therefore, the Writ Appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. (11) Sri.Jijo Paul, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, after the disposal of the Writ Appeal, would inform us, that, the W.A.No.1651 of 2008 - 5 - respondents have pursued with request made by the workman and the authority, under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act, has initiated revenue recovery proceedings to recover the amounts due to the workman. If that is so, the management has to question those proceedings before an appropriate forum. (12) In view of the orders passed in the Writ Appeal, I.A.No.903 of 2008 is rejected. Ordered accordingly. H.L.Dattu Chief Justice A.K.Basheer Judge vku/dk