IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2011 / 17TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 36798 of 2010(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.SHYLAJA, THATTEN HOUSE, PADINJARA METTA, P.O.CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR-11. BY ADV. SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE SECRETARY, VANAJA WEAVERS INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., PANAMKAVU P.O., CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR-11. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.36798 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Ext.P1 Award passed by the Labour Court, Kannur on 17.12.2009 in I.D.No.14/2005 is under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner was an employee of the respondent society. The dispute referred to the Labour Court for adjudication was whether denial of employment to the petitioner is justifiable. The Labour Court on an analysis of the evidence oral and documentary held that the case set up by the petitioner that she was denied employment is false and that she retired on superannuation with effect from 4.3.2005. 2. The petitioner contended before the Labour Court that she was denied employment by the respondent with effect from 13.4.2003 for the reason that she had earlier raised an Industrial Dispute which was decided in her favour. The respondent contended that the petitioner was not denied employment, that she continued in service till 12.2.2005 and retired on superannuation on 4.3.2005. In the Labour Court, the management produced the attendance registers for the period from April 2000 to October 2004 and for the period from November 2004 to August 2009. The wages register for the period from July 2001 to October 2005 was also produced. Since the petitioner denied the signature in the attendance registers and the W.P.(C) No.36798 of 2010 2 wages register, the Labour Court did not rely on the same. The Labour Court however noticed that the employer has paid the employer's and employee's share of contribution to the Employees' State Insurance Corporation even in respect of the petitioner and that the documents produced as Exts.M4, M5 and M6 conclusively establish the fact that the petitioner was not denied employment. The Labour Court also held on an appreciation of the evidence that the petitioner whose date of birth is 30.9.1946 retired from service on 4.3.2005 on attaining the age of 58 years, though she ought to have retired on 30.9.2004 going by her date of birth. 3. In my opinion, the challenge to Ext.P1 is without any merit. The Labour Court has on an appreciation of the evidence come to the conclusion that the petitioner was not denied employment. This Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion even if a different view is possible on the facts proved. The view taken by the Labour Court is a possible view on the facts and cannot be said to be perverse warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I, therefore, find no grounds to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.