IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2008 / 20TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 12211 of 2008(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ ALPHA SPICES, JEW TOWN, KOCHI-2,REPR, BY ITS PARTNER RESHMI VIDYASAGAR. BY ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA. 2. C.SREENIVASAN, S/O.CHANDU, ANAKETTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PANDIKUDY, KOCHI-2. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No. 12211 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 9th day of April, 2008. = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = = = J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the management in I.D.No. 78/04 before the Industrial Tribunal, Alappuzha. They are challenging Ext.P2 award passed by the Industrial Tribunal in that I.D. The issue referred to adjudication in that I.D was, “whether the alleged denial of employment to worker Shri. C.Sreenivasan with effect from 16.02.2004 by closing down the establishment is justifiable? and to what relief he is entitled to?” The tribunal, after considering the evidence before it, found that the denial of employment was consequent to closure of the establishment and therefore the workmen was entitled to closure compensation and other statutory benefits amounting to Rs.50,050/-. Petitioner challenges that award on the ground that since the establishment has been closed down for reasons beyond control of the management they are liable to pay only three months wages as closure compensation. 2. I have considered the contention of the counsel for W.P.(C).No. 12211 OF 2008 2 the petitioner. 3. Although in Ext.P1 written statement, the petitioner has claimed that the closure was for reasons beyond the control of the management. There is absolutely no mention as to what were those reasons even assuming that the legal position is as the petitioner claims to be. From Ext.P2 award , I see that the management has not even cared to adduce any evidence in the I.D. That being so, the petitioner cannot now challenge that award on the ground that the closure was for reasons beyond control. Therefore I do not find any merit in the challenge against Ext.P2 award, on the grounds mentioned in the writ petition. 4. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the establishment was started by two ladies desirous of being self employed and their venture has ended in failure and therefore they may be permitted to pay off the amounts in instalments. I do not think that for that purpose I should drag the workmen to this Court. Accordingly I dispose of this writ petition permitting the petitioner to pay off the amounts to the 2nd respondent in 4 W.P.(C).No. 12211 OF 2008 3 equal monthly instalments starting from 1.5.2008. Subsequent instalments shall be paid on the 1st day of every succeeding month. If the petitioner pays the amount on the due dates for payment of instalments coercive proceedings of implementation of Ext.P2 award shall be kept in abeyance. However, if the petitioner fails to pay any one instalment, the petitioner would not be eligible for the benefit of this direction and in that case the petitioner would be liable to pay an interest at 12% for the whole amount from 16.3.2004 onwards. The office shall forward a copy of the judgment to the 2nd respondent for information and he would be free to approach this Court, with a petition in this writ petition itself, if he is aggrieved by this judgment or the petitioner does not comply with the above conditions. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE bkn/-