IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2009 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 8507 of 2009(G) ------------------------- CP.85/2005 of LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SRI.RAJENDRAN NAIR, LICENSEE, HOTEL HIGH LAND, KOTTARAKKARA,KOLLAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.LEGY ABRAHAM SRI.C.N.SIVANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SRI. SATHEESAN.B.,S/O.DAMODARAN, SOUPARNIKA, VENGARA, THODIYOOR NORTH, KARUNAGAPPALLY. 2. SRI RAJESH.R.,S/O.RAJAN, KONNAYIL VEEDU, KADOKKODU.P.O.,EZHUKONE, KOTTARAKKARA. 3. SRI. UNNIKRISHNA KURUP, S/O.DASAPPA KURUP,AAYATHU PUTHENVEEDU, CHUDANTHALA,NELLIKUNNAM.P.O., KOTTARAKARA. 4. THE LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. M.R. SREELATHA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 8507 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 17th March, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext. P1 order of the Labour Court, Kollam in Claim Petition no. 85/2005, wherein the petitioner, who was the employer of respondents 1 to 3, has been directed to pay minimum wages as directed therein. The petitioner's contention is that the petitioner has not been afforded sufficient opportunity to produce documents. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. The claim petition was of the year 2005. Ext. P1 order was passed only on 16-12-2008, more than three years after the filing of the claim petition, during which time, there was sufficient time for the petitioner to produce all his evidence before the Labour Court. The employment of respondents 1 to 3 is not disputed by the petitioner. The fact that there is a minimum wage notification is also not disputed. The petitioner has not proved that he had paid minimum wages to respondents 1 to 3. His only contention before the Labour Court was that respondents 1 to 3 worked only for a lesser period than what was claimed. The same was negatived on the basis of evidence before the Labour Court. That is a question of fact, which cannot be interfered with in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless that finding of fact is perverse. I have gone through the discussion of evidence in Ext. P1. There is absolutely nothing suggesting even remotely any perversity therein. In the above circumstances, there is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/