IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2008 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 11051 of 2008(N) -------------------------- ID.63/2004 of LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------ SMT. ANITHAKUMARI, PROPRIETRIX PRANAVAM MOTORS, DEVAKI MANDIRAM KAVANADU P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR SRI.DILEEP P.PILLAI RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE GENERAL SECRETARY QUILON DISTRICT MOTOR AND MECHANICAL WORKERS UNION CITU, KOLLAM-13. 2. THE LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM. 3. DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, CIVIL STATION KOLLAM-13. 4. THE DEPUTY THAHSILDAR (RR), KOLLAM-12 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. I.V. PRAMOD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 11051 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 29th May, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Ext. P1 award passed by the Labour Court, Kollam in I.D. No. 63/2004 in which I.D, the petitioner was the management. The issue referred for adjudication was: “Whether the alleged denial of employment of Sri. S. Babu, conductor of K.L.11-A/7848, Pranavam Motor (Kollam-Bharanikavu Bus Service) with effect from 4/03 is justifiable? If not, what relief is entitled to him?” Before the Labour Court, the petitioner raised the contention that there was no employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and the workman involved in the I.D. This was disbelieved by the Labour Court and the Labour Court came to the finding that the workman was denied employment However, apparently taking into account the contention of the petitioner that the vehicle in which the workman was employed has since been disposed of, the Labour Court directed payment of compensation amounting to Rs. 50,000/- to the workman. That award is under challenge before me. 2. The petitioner challenges the findings in Ext. P1 award as perverse, particularly the finding that there was no denial of employment as alleged. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. I am not inclined to entertain the challenge against Ext. P1 award for more than one reason. The first is that the award dated 20- 12-2006 was published in accordance with Rule 26A of the Kerala Industrial Disputes Rules on 19-3-2007. This writ petition is filed only on 31-3-2008. The petitioner has not even offered any explanation for the inordinate delay of one year in challenging the same. On merits also, the petitioner is not entitled to succeed. Going by Ext. P2 written statement filed by the petitioner before the Labour Court her only contention was that there was no employer-employee W.P.C. No. 11051/2008 -: 2 :- relationship between the petitioner and the workman involved. But, while giving evidence for the management, the management witness MW1 categorically admitted the employer-employee relationship. MW1, who was the brother of the proprietor of the Bus, admitted continuous service of the workman as conductor in the stage carriage bus. It was while giving evidence the management witness took the contention that there was no denial of employment. Naturally, the Labour Court disbelieved the version of the management. I do not think anything perverse in such finding, without which I cannot interfere with Ext. P1 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/