IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2009 / 25TH ASHADHA 1931 OP.No. 16212 of 2001(E) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.FIBRE FOAM PVT. LTD. BALIAPATTAM, KANNUR, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.E.K.MADHAVAN SRI.P.V.LOHITHAKSHAN SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON SMT.P.VIJAYAMMA SMT.UMA GOPINATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE SECRETARY, BALIAPATTAM FIBRE FOAM WORKERS UNION, POST BALIAPATTAM, KANNUR-10. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP NO.25612/2001 IN O.P. NO.16212/2001 DISMISSED: 16.7.2009 SD/-(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DT.10.2.92 OF THE PETITIONER TO SRI.RAJEEVAN.K. P2: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.10.2.93 OF THE PETITIONER TO SRI.RAJEEVAN.K. P3: TRUE COPY OF AWARD OF R1 IN I.D. NO.16/97 DT.23.3.2000 PUBLISHED IN THE KERALA GAZETTE DT.23.1.2001. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... O.P. No.16212 of 2001 .................................................................... Dated this the 16th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT The O.P. is filed 8 years back and ever since there is stay against implementation of the award by which Industrial Tribunal ordered payment of minimum wages and creation of Electrician Grade I to accommodate the concerned employee by name Rajeevan. It is seen that the case was represented by the Union before the Industrial Tribunal. Even though Union has received notice in the O.P., it has not bothered to appear in court. The petitioner has raised serious objection against the findings of the Industrial Tribunal. In fact according to the management, wages paid was much more than the minimum wages payable. It is not known whether the Union has volunteered in the matter and the worker is still with the management. Since there is no response from the second respondent and since the award is not implemented for 8 years and the concerned worker is continuously in employment with the management is not disputed, I allow the O.P. by vacating the award leaving freedom to the second respondent to file review, if they want to press the claim. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms