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. 17683 of 2004(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ THE GENERAL MANAGER (OPERATIONS), ARNAKAL ESTATE, THE MIDLAND RUBBER & PRODUCE CO.LTD., VANDIPERIYAR P.O. - 685 533. BY ADV. . SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SMT.PRIYA MAHESH SMT.PRIYA MANJOORAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE GENERAL SECRETARY, HRET UNION, VANDIPERIYAR P.O. - 685 533. 2. THE GENERAL SECRETARY, K.E.W.UNION, VANDIPERIYAR P.O. - 685 533. 3. THE CHIEF INSPECTOR OF PLANTATIONS, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. N. SUDHA DEVI -FOR R3 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. 17683/2004. --------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF REPLY DT. 24-12-1998. EXT.P2 LETTER DT. 5-1-1989. EXT.P3 ORDER DT. 9-1-1989. EXT.P4 JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO. 5120/1989. EXT.P5 ORDER DT. 26-10-1993. EXT.P6 JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO. 7508/1994. EXT.P7 NOTICE PUBLISHED ON 21-12-1988. EXT.P8 LETTER DT. 24-12-1988. EXT.P9 STATEMENT DT. 12-5-2004. EXT.P10 ORDER DT. 14-5-2004. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 17683 of 2004 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 3rd June, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the employer coming within the purview of the Plantation Labour Act. He challenges Ext. P10 order passed by the Chief Inspector of Plantations, whereby the Chief Inspector directed the petitioner to pay holiday wages under the National and Festival Holidays Act to 424 temporary workers of the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner is that the workers were only temporary workers, their engagement was discontinued, they did not work after the holidays in respect of wages are demanded and therefore they are not eligible for holiday wages. Simply because the workers were temporary workers, they do not become disentitled for holiday wages under the Act provided they come within the definition of worker in the Plantation Labour Act. The requirement is that they should have been employed for 30 days within 90 days preceding the holiday. It is not disputed before me that, that qualification is satisfied. The contention of the petitioner is that since they were not employed after the holidays in question, they are not eligible for the holiday wages. The question as to whether the workers worked after the holidays is a question of fact to be proved by necessary evidence. After initially challenging payment of holiday wages for all 424 temporary employees, the management themselves later admitted that majority of the workers were engaged for period subsequent to the holidays also. They thereafter disputed the case of only 144 workers. The question as to whether those 144 workers also worked or not succeeding the holidays could easily have been proved by the petitioner himself by producing the relevant wage register for the period. From Ext. P10 it is clear that the Union had sought production of the wage register for the relevant period. Admittedly, that wage register had not been produced. Instead an abstract from W.P.C. No. 17683/2004. -: 2 :- the wage register only was produced. The abstract would only show the number of days the workmen worked and would not show as to whether they worked succeeding the holidays. Therefore, I do not find anything wrong with Ext. P10 order in which the petitioner has been found fault with for not producing the wage register. In any event, this is purely a matter of evidence. The appropriate authority has, on the basis of evidence before him, come to the conclusion that the workers in question are eligible for holiday wages. I do not find anything perverse in such finding. In the absence of any perversity in the findings, I am not exercising my discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/