IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2008 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 9503 of 2004(F) ------------------------- ID.80/1995 of LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------ RAMAN S/O. SANKARAN, NECHIKKATTU, KUMBALANGI, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOLLY JOHN SRI.E.G.GORDEN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM. 2. MR.SACHARIA @ KUNJUMON, C.C.MATHAPPAN AND COMPANY, MATHAPPAN ENTERPRISES, MARKET ROAD, ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 9503/2004. ------------------------------------------------------------------ EXT.P1 AWARD DT. 23-1-2003 IN I.D.NO. 80/95. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 9503 of 2004 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 3rd June, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the workman involved in I.D.No. 80/1995 before the Labour Court, Ernakulam. He is challenging Ext. P1 award passed by the Labour Court in that I.D. The issue referred for adjudication was denial of employment to the petitioner. The Labour Court found that the workman was unjustly denied employment and therefore directed reinstatement, but backwages were denied. The workman is challenging that part of the award whereby the petitioner was denied backwages. According to the petitioner, when the denial of employment is unjust, he should also be given backwages. 2. I have heard the learned counsel on both sides. 3. From Ext. P1 award, I find no reason whatsoever for denying backwages to the workman. Of course, going by the recent Supreme Court decisions on the subject, payment of backwages is not automatic. But the Labour Court should have applied its mind as to whether any part of the backwages should have been paid, which does not appear to have been done in this case. Clearly on that ground, I should have set aside that part of the award, whereby backwages were denied to the workman and remanded the matter to the Labour Court for fresh adjudication of that issue. However, on a little persuasion by this Court, the parties agreed for a settlement and took time for negotiations. Although advocates appearing for the parties tried their best, they could not get the parties to agree on the amount payable. One suggested Rs. 10,000/- and the other Rs. 25,000/-. Taking into account all facts and circumstances of the case, I think that payment of an amount of Rs. 20,000/- would satisfy the ends of justice. W.P.C. No. 9503/2004. -: 2 :- Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition modifying the award with a further direction to the 2nd respondent to pay to the petitioner Rs. 20,000/- as backwages within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the 2nd respondent does not pay the amount within the above said period, that amount would carry interest at 12% from the date of the award. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/