IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2009 / 22ND SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 3632 of 2004(G) ------------------------- ID.19/1992 of LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, NILAMBUR. 2. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, EDAVANNA. BY G.P. SRI.MATHEW VADAKKEL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SRI.K.T.MOHAMEDALI, S/O. BEERAN, KIZHEKKETHODI VEETTIL, VALILLAPPUZHA P.O., AREACODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.THOMAS ANTONY FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DT.8.1.2003 IN O.P. 17946/93. P2: TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT FILED IN THE LABOUR COURT AS ID 19/92 DT.6.6.1992. P3: TRUE COPY OF ADDITIONAL OBJECTION DT.10.8.92. P4: TRUE COPY OF AWARD PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT DT.28.4.2003. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R1(a): CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.3632 of 2004 .................................................................... Dated this the 13th day of August, 2009. JUDGMENT The respondent was taken by the Forest Department as a casual employee for protecting the Cashew Plantation in the year 1979. However, he was denied employment from 1982 onwards. After around 9 years, respondent filed an application for referring the industrial dispute for decision by the Labour Court. Initial award of the Labour Court was to grant retrenchment compensation to the respondent, against which he approached this court and this court remanded the matter again to the Labour Court which issued Ext.P4 award against which State has filed this W.P.(C). I heard Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners and counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. On going through the award and after hearing both sides, I notice that the departmental authorities have not furnished any details about period of employment or nature of employment, even though their specific case was that respondent was employed only as a casual employee and he was not on regular employment. If respondent was only a casual employee engaged on daily basis, then of course he is not entitled to any benefit. 2 However, the Labour Court assumed that he was employed for three years continuously and was denied employment without any justification. However, there is no finding that the respondent was appointed against a regular post or that Government has substituted the respondent with any other employee to show that the vacancy still remained. Strangely respondent challenged denial of employment after nine years of release from service. However, the finding of the Labour Court is that he is not entitled to any back wages until then. However, the Government's challenge is against order reinstating the respondent. The respondent is presently over- aged to be absorbed in Government service. Therefore, reinstatement does not arise at all. Balance is only question of entitlement of the respondent for back wages without doing any work. I do not find any justification for giving wages to the respondent for the period he has not done any work. In the first place, he would have been employed gainfully elsewhere and obviously that is the reason why he did not claim employment under the Government or challenge his release from service for nine years. Therefore, I am of the view that litigation is only an afterthought and on the encouragement of somebody. This court under interim orders ordered payment of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent. I feel this amount will be sufficient compensation for denial of employment to the respondent. The 3 W.P. is accordingly disposed of modifying Ext.P4 by directing payment of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent by the petitioners as compensation for denial of employment. If payment is already made, then the matter will be treated as finally settled and if payment is not made, petitioner shall pay the amount of Rs.10,000/- without any delay. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms