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. 10182 of 2005(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ THE MANAGER, NAGAMALY ESTATE, KALTHURUTHY P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE (SR.) SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SMT.PRIYA MAHESH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE GENERAL SECRETARY, PLANTATION EMPLOYEES UNION (CITU), PUNALUR. 2. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 10182 of 2005 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 3rd June, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the management in I.D. No. 21/2001 before the Industrial Tribunal, Kollam, in which the Tribunal passed Ext. P1 award against the petitioner. The petitioner is challenging Ext. P1 award in this writ petition. The issue referred for adjudication was: “Whether the transfer and subsequent denial of employment to Sri. Kanakaraj, Driver, Nagamalai Estate is justifiable or not? If not, the relief for which he is entitled to.” The Tribunal found that no transfer order was issued to the workman in question and therefore there is no transfer at all. On that ground, the Tribunal held that the transfer and subsequent denial of employment to the workman in question are unjustifiable and hence the workman is entitled to continue in service with backwages and all other consequential benefits. The contention of the petitioner is that the finding is perverse in so far as the workman had actually taken charge pursuant to the transfer order at the transferred station. 2. I have considered the contentions of the management. 3. The contention now raised is that although the transfer order was tried to be served on the workman, he refused to accept the same as is evident from the endorsement in Ext. P3. But, strangely the transfer is admittedly with effect from 5-6-2000 and the endorsement that the workman refused to accept the same is dated 13-6-2000 and the endorsement is not by the workman. The case of the petitioner is that the workman took charge pursuant to the transfer on 5-6-2006. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that transfer order was served on the workman and he refused to accept the same does not appear to be correct. Further, it is the admitted case of the management that they had sent the transfer order by post to the workman in some address in Tamil Nadu. It is beyond comprehension as to why the workman who is working in the estate of the petitioner W.P.C. No. 10182/2005. -: 2 :- and who is residing there was issued with a transfer order in his Tamil Nadu address by post, even assuming that the address at Tamil Nadu is that of the workman in question. The workman's case was that he was asked to temporarily work in the latter estate for a few days and he was denied employment when he reported back to his parent estate after the work at the other estate was over. The workman's case appears to be more probable in the light of the evidence available before the Tribunal. Therefore, I do not find any perversity in the finding of the Tribunal that the petitioner's case cannot be believed. That being so, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned award. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.