IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2009 / 16TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 18865 of 2009(C) -------------------------- CP.3/2008 of LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- REGIONAL MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, GOPAL BUILDING, THYVILA ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1 BY ADVS. MR.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, MR.SANTHOSH.K.S., MR.K.M.ANEESH. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT, ERNKULAM. 2. SMT.K.OMANA, PART-TIME SAFAI KARMACHARI, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, KALANJOOR BRANCH, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY MR. P. PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.18865 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 7th July,2009 J U D G M E N T The 2nd respondent herein filed a claim petition before the 1st respondent, the Central Government Industrial Tribunal under Section 33 (C) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming that she was a part-time sweeper working in the Kalanjoor branch of the petitioner Bank and is entitled to get 3/4th scale wages as per Ext.P1 order. Petitioner filed Exhibit-P2 objections raising a dispute as to the period during which the petitioner had worked. The Tribunal had on an elaborate appreciation of evidence come to the conclusion that the petitioner had actually worked for the period from 1.6.2005 to 31.5.2008 and is entitled to get 3/4th of the scale wages as per the award Exhibit-P1. This is under challenge in the writ petition. 2. I heard learned counsel for the respondents also. The Tribunal has rightly taken note of the fact that W.P ( C) No.18865 of 2009 2 Exhibit-P1 award has become final. Tribunal has also taken note of the fact that CP 64/06 filed for the period from 1.9.1997 to 31.5.2006 was allowed as per order dated 31.1.2007. There was no reason why a different method should be adopted for a period prior to 24.6.2008, with effect from the date on which, according to the petitioner, there was a proposed change in the service conditions of the workman. The Tribunal had also taken note of the fact that the Bank had not filed any separate calculation statement pointing out any error in the tabular statement filed by the workman. In these circumstances, I find no grounds to interfere with the findings of fact entered into by the Tribunal, granting arrears of wages in favour of a part-time sweeper. Writ petition is bereft of merit and hence dismissed. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.18865 of 2009 3 W.P ( C) No.18865 of 2009 4