IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2008 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 36442 of 2005(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. A.K. RAVEENDRAN, CHEKKIKULAM, P.O. CHEKKIKULAM, KANNUR. 2. SMT. C.V.GEETHA, LAKSHMIKUMAR NIVAS, CHEKKIKULAM, P.O. CHEKKIKULAM, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE SRI.M.K.SUMOD RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. A.K. DAMODARAN, LAKSHMI KUMAR NIVAS, CHEKKIKULAM P.O., P.O. CHEKKIKULAM, KANNUR DIST. 2. THE SECRETARY, KERALA MOTOR LABOUR UNION (INTUC), KANNUR-1. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LABOUR DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, KANNUR DT.16.3.2005. P2: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY 1ST PETITIONER TO THE WORKMAN DT.28.9.1998. P3: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY 1ST PETITIONER TO THE WORKMAN DT.14.10.98. P4: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY 1ST PETITIONER TO THE WORKMAN DT.11.11.98. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.36442 of 2005 .................................................................... Dated this the 6th day of June, 2008. JUDGMENT The W.P. is filed by petitioners against Ext.P1 award passed by the Labour Court directing reinstatement of the driver who was denied employment by the petitioners. While petitioners have stated that they have paid above Rs.60,000/- under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, counsel appearing for the employee submitted that full payment is not received. In any case since petitioners have stated that they have closed business, there is no scope for reinstatement of the employee who was denied employment. However, detailed findings of the Labour Court based on evidence about denial of employment do not warrant any interference. If business is closed by the petitioners, then of course there is no scope for reinstatement of the released employee. The Labour Court has to necessarily fix compensation in the form of alternate relief to the employee. The petitioners will along with copy of this judgment file an affidavit about closure of business by them before the Labour Court and if any such affidavit is filed along copy of judgment, the Labour Court will fix the compensation by taking into account the payment already made, alternate 2 employment obtained by the employee etc. However, if petitioners are still continuing business, then Ext.P1 award will stand sustained and the Labour Court will proceed to enforce the same. The Labour Court is directed to pass fresh orders as above within a period of two months from the date of production of copy of this judgment. Both the parties will appear before the Labour Court on 14.7.2008. If there is no sitting on that day, the parties will appear on the next sitting day of the Labour Court. The W.P. is disposed of as above. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms