IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2010 / 14TH POUSHA 1931 WA.No. 2881 of 2009 --------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.5532/2006 Dated 25/06/2009 .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 --------------------------------------------------- 1. THE SOUTH INDIAN WORKERS CONGRESS (INTUC-1), MASS HOTEL ANNEXE, COCHIN-682018, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. 2. K.V.ANIL MITHRA, 'RETHAS' KAMALESWRAM, MANACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM. 3. K.DILEEP, 'DILI BHAVAN' NEAR VETTIKONAM SCHOOL, MANIKANDESWARAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -13. BY ADV. SRI.PAULSON C.VARGHESE SRI.E.A.BIJUMON RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENT NO.4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. SREE SANKARA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT, P.B.NO.14, KALADY – 683574, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 2. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA. R1 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A. No.2881 of 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 25th June, 2009 allowing the writ petition filed by the employer University, the present writ appeal is filed. 2. The University had challenged Ext.P14 award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, inter alia, directing the University to pay backwages to the employees terminated by the University in terms of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. 3. Noting the undisputed fact that the appointments of the workmen represented by the appellants herein were illegal and product of fraud committed as held by this Court as per the judgments Exts.P1 and P2, the learned Single Judge found that W.A. No.2881 of 2009 2 without considering these aspects the Tribunal was not justified in allowing the reference and passing the impugned award. 4. By reading the provisions of Section 25F, Section 2(oo) the definition of retrenchment and the allied provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, it is clear that the provisions and the benefits under the Act are available to the workmen who are appointed in due course regularly and properly and at any rate not after this Court has held that their appointments were illegal. Though such a question was raised, the Tribunal thought it fit to ignore the same on the ground of it being unnecessary. In our view, in these circumstances, the learned Single Judge was justified in holding that unless the Tribunal had given a finding as to the applicability or availability of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act to the workers, it could not have proceeded to answer the reference. 5. In this view of the matter, we find that the learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the writ petition W.A. No.2881 of 2009 3 and setting aside the illegal award passed by the Tribunal. We find no merit in this appeal to disagree with the finding of the learned Single Judge and hence dismiss the appeal as devoid of merits. S.R.Bannurmath, Chief Justice Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge vns