IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2009 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1931 W.P(C).No. 9613 of 2009(V) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M. HARIHARAN, S/O. M. MEEAKSHI SUNDARAM IYER, T.C. 41/401, II PUTHEN STREET, MANACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMASWAMY PILLAI SRI.P.M.JOSEPH RESPONDENT: --------------- SRI. CHITRA THIRUNAL INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.9613 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of March, 2009. JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P10, an award rendered by the Central Government Industrial-cum Labour Court, Ernakulam in I.D.No.336/06. The issue referred for adjudication is as follows. “Whether the demand of Shri.M.Hariharan for reinstatement and regularization in the services of the management of Sree Chithira Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology, Trivandrum is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?” 2. Petitioner contended that he has been continuously doing typing work under the respondent till 1996. It is stated that from 1996 typing work was awarded to M/s.Pitman's Phonetic Institute, Thiruvananthapuram and from then onwards the management denied work to him. Claiming that he has continuous service of 14 years, the WP(c).No.9613/09 2 dispute was raised and on its reference to the Labour Court, it was numbered as I.D.No.336/06. Management entered appearance and contested the claim. According to the management, contract was awarded to M/s. M/s.Pitman's Phonetic Institute and no contract of any nature was entered into with the petitioner. It was contended that the petitioner was the Manager of M/s.Pitman's Phonetic Institute and remuneration was fixed on piece rate basis. Since according to the management the petitioner was an employee of M/s.Pitman's Phonetic Institute, it was contended that he can have no claim as against the management. 3. The issue raised before the Labour Court was mainly whether the petitioner was a contract employee of the management or not. Examining this issue and referring to the claim statement and other evidence on record, the Labour Court found that there was no evidence to show that the management paid any remuneration to the workmen or that it supervised or controlled the worker. It was also found that there was no evidence to show that the management has any disciplinary control over the workman. It was also found that WP(c).No.9613/09 3 there was no pleading to the effect that the petitioner was a contract labourer. In the absence of any pleading or proof regarding the nature of contract, the relationship between the Management and the workmen, control and supervision over the worker, the mode of making payment, disciplinary power etc., the Labour Court answered the first issue against the workmen. On this basis his claim for reinstatement is also rejected. A reading of Ext.P1 award shows that the Labour Court has fully appreciated the facts as pleaded and other materials that are placed. On the materials available, I am not persuaded to conclude that the award is vitiated by perversity of factual findings. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.9613/09 4