IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2008 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 12685 of 2008(I) -------------------------- ID.45/2004 of LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. PARVATHI MILLS E M E WORKERS UNION REGN NO.58/79,KOLLAM 691 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY. 2. G. YESUDASAN, S/O.GEORGE, JINI NIVAS, KANJAVELY P.O., KOLLAM-691 602. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SMT. SMITHA GEORGE RESPONDENT: ------------- LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 12685 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 23rd May, 2008. J U D G M E N T First petitioner is the Union in I.D.No. 45/2004 before the Labour Court, Kollam and the 2nd the petitioner is its member. They are challenging Ext. P3 award passed by the Labour Court in that I.D. The issue referred for adjudication was: “Whether the workers of Plainloom, Ante Weaving and Processing Sections of Parvathy Mills, Kollam who retired under MVR Scheme are eligible to get more financial benefits than availed? If so, the quantum of benefits they are entitled to?” There were three points raised by the Union, apart from the technical point as to whether the industrial dispute itself would lie. The Labour Court found that the industrial dispute would not lie as the retired workmen are not entitled to raise the dispute. Since I am of opinion that the decision of the Labour Court on merits is correct, I am not going into that technical contention. 3. The first point raised by the Union is that the compensation under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme should be calculated on the basis that one day's salary should be computed by dividing monthly salary by 26 and not by 30. The second is regarding the validity of the computation of the length of service. The third is regarding recovery of temporary advance. 2. I have gone through the discussion of the Labour Court of the evidence and the issues involved. The Labour Court has given elaborate reasoning for arriving at the conclusion that the workers are not entitled to any reliefs in the I.D. The reasoning appears to be quite reasonable and valid. In any event, there is nothing perverse in the reasoning given by the Labour Court. Without entering a finding that the decision is perverse, this Court, in exercise of its W.P.C. No. 12685/2008. -: 2 :- discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot interfere with awards of Labour Courts and Tribunals. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/