IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2009 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 13986 of 2009(P) -------------------------- ID.1/2006 of INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. C.K.NASSAR, S/O. LATE MAMMAD, KOVILPARAMBU HOUSE, MUNDOOR.P.O.,PALAKKAD. 2. C.K.AHAMMED, AGED 41 YEARS, KOVILPARAMBU HOUSE, MUNDOOR.P.O.,PALAKKAD (PROPRIETOR, MALABAR TIMBER MERCHANT, MUNDOOR.P.O. PALAKKAD) BY ADV. SRI.ESM.KABEER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. A.RAVIACHAN, S/O. APPU, VELIKKAD VEEDU, VELIKKAD.P.O., PALAKKAD. 2. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD. GP SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).13986/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 25th day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT The first respondent was working as a cutter under the second respondent since 1991 and when, according to him, he was denied employment in 2004, a dispute arose as regards the alleged denial of employment which came to be referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad, as I.D.1/2006. The Tribunal passed an award holding that termination is not justified and that the workman is entitled to receive from the Management 10 months' wages as compensation. This has been challenged in the writ petition. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused Ext.P5. 3. I am of the view that sufficient reasons have been give by the Tribunal to find that the termination of the service of workman is not justified. Firstly, it is not the case of the W.P.(C).13986/09 2 Management that any domestic enquiry was conducted against the workman. Secondly, the evidence adduced by the workman to the effect that he had reported for duty in August, 2004, after keeping away from work for a few days in late July 2004, on account of medical reasons was found acceptable. The absence of any contra evidence on the part of the Management, has also been appreciated by the Industrial Tribunal. 4. Thirdly, the version of the workman that there was repair work in the establishment and therefore, there was no work on 26.7.2004 and 27.7.2004 has also been appreciated. His absence from 28.7.2004 to 31.7.2004 was on medical grounds. The workman reported for duty on 1.8.2004 and he had actually worked for a few days. According to the Management, he had not reported for duty thereafter. If therefore, it was a case of abandonment of work by an employee, then domestic enquiry should have followed. If it is a case of any other default, same procedure should W.P.(C).13986/09 3 have been followed. But obviously no such domestic enquiry was conducted. In these circumstances, Tribunal was justified in holding that the termination of service is otherwise unsustainable. 5. In the absence of any evidence to show the total emoluments which the petitioner was drawing and the refusal/failure on the part of the Management to place adequate material in this regard, Industrial Tribunal only directed that one month's wages for every years of service be granted, as compensation. I am of the view that this is also a perfectly reasonable direction as such. I find no grounds to interfere with Ext.P5. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs