IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 26TH OCTOBER 2009 / 4TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 21501 of 2009(G) -------------------------- ID.27/1999 of INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- THE POLICE STAFF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, NO.T.696, THYCAUD, TRIVANDRUM, REP.BY ITS PRESIDENT, R.ASHOKAN NAIR, S/O.G.RAMAN NAIR BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM. 2. SUNIL KUMAR, SUNIL NIVAS, GOWREESAPATTAM, TRIVANDRUM. 3. DEEPA S.NAIR, SUKUMARA BHAVAN, POTTAYIL, TRIVANDRUM. SR.GOVT. PLEADER K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.21501 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 26th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The management in I.D.No.27/2009 before the Industrial Tribunal, Kollam, is the petitioner herein. The petitioner is the President of a co-operative society. He is challenging Ext.P4 award passed by the Tribunal in that I.D. 2. The issue referred for adjudication was: “Whether the following nine employees are eligible for reinstatement in service. (1) T.Rajendrakumar, Santhinilayam, Maruthenkuzhy, Thiruvananthapuram. (2) P.K.Shajan, Raheela Manzhil, Kumarapuram, Thiruvananthapuram. (3) S.Mohandas, T.C.10/556, Peroorkada P.O., Thiruvananthapuram. (4) Mohanakumar, Thazhathuvila Veedu, Chengal, Thiruvananthapuram. (5) S.Pradeepan, Plavila Veedu, Venniyoor, Thiruvananthapuram. (6) Sunilkumar, Sunil Nivas, Goureesapattom, Thiruvananthapuram. (7) Radhikakumari, Ponnu Nivas, Mettukada, Thiruvananthapuram. (8) Sreekala, K.P.No.8/38, Kudappanakkunnu, Thiruvananthapuram. (9) Deepa.S.Nair, Sukumara Bhavan, Pottayil, Thiruvananthapuram.” 2 3. Out of the nine employees involved, only two employees actively participated in the dispute. Therefore, the Tribunal considered their case only in the dispute. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that those two employees were illegally terminated from service. On that finding, the Tribunal, by the impugned award, directed the petitioner- management to reinstate the two workers with continuity of service within three months from the notification of the award without backwages. That award is under challenge in this writ petition. 4. The petitioner raises three contentions. The first is that the employees were not regularly appointed and, therefore, they have no right to be reinstated in service. The second is that as is evidenced by Exts.M1 and W1 marked in the Industrial Dispute, the workers were engaged as temporary workers and by the award, the workers have been directed to be regualarised in service, which is patently illegal. The third is that the workers have not sufficiently proved that they have completed 240 days in an year so as to become entitled to the benefits under the Industrial Disputes Act. 5. I have considered the contentions of the petitioner. 6. Regarding the first contention of the management, the management witnesses themselves admitted before the Tribunal that the appointments were made from among the names forwarded by the State Co-operative Union, which is the mode prescribed by the 3 Government for filling up temporary vacancies. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that the workers were not appointed legally. Regarding the second contention to the effect that temporary employees are not entitled to the benefits of the Industrial Disputes Act, the benefits of the Industrial Disputes Act are applicale to 'workmen' as defined under the Act whether temporary or on daily wages or permanent. That being so, because the workers are temporary workers, they cannot be denied the benefits of the Industrial Disputes Act provided the conditions in the Act are satisfied. Further, the management witnesses themselves admitted before the Tribunal that the workers were doing the day to day work of the society and since the permanent workers are not sufficient, at least 4 more employees are necessary to do the day to day work of the society. That being so, I am not inclined to countenance the contention of the petitioner that the work done by the workmen in question is temporary in nature. Regarding the last contention, the workmen have gone to the box and deposed that they have completed 240 days work in an year. They had sought production of the records kept by the society for five years to further prove their contention. However, the management produced records only for two months viz., May, 1998 and June 1998 instead of five years, for which the reason given by the management is that remaining books are with the Vigilance 4 Department in connection with the case of WW2. The very same witness admitted before the Tribunal in the cross examination that in respect of the two workers involved, there were absolutely no allegations whatsoever. It is also admitted that the society has no complaints against them. Apart from that, the question as to whether the workers completed 240 days in an year is a question of fact, which has been decided in favour of the workmen by the Tribunal. This Court cannot overturn that finding unless the same is perverse. I do not find anything perverse in the finding of the Tribunal. Lastly, the petitioner would contend that the Tribunal has directed regularisation of the services of the two workmen, which is not permissible in law. I do not find even the word “regularisation” in the award. What has been stated in the award is as follows: “In the result I hold that Sri.Sunil Kumar and Smt.Deepa.S.Nair are entitled to reinstatement in the establishment of management with continuity of service. I am directing the management to reinstate the above workers with continuity of service with (sic) 3 months from the date of notification of this award.” Therefore, I do not find any merit in that contention also. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the contentions of the petitioner and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 5