IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 14TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 25TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 5374 of 2008(M) --------------------------------- ID.93/1999 of LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: --------------- RASHTRA DEEPIKA LTD. PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF EDITOR FR. JOSE PATHAPLAMTHOTTY. BY ADV. SRI.JOMY GEORGE RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. SRI.M.J.JOSE, MURCHIRA VEEDU THURAVOOR PO, CHERTHALA - 688 532. 2. LABOUR COURT ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. A.J. VARGHESE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.5374 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the management in I.D. No.93/1999 before the Labour Court, Ernakulam. They are challenging Ext.P4 award passed by the Labour Court in that I.D. The issue referred for adjudication was: “whether the action of the management in terminating service of Sri. M.J. Jose is justifiable, if not what relief he is entitled to?” 2. The Labour Court found that the workman was continuously working in the management establishment for 4 years and therefore termination of his service is not justifiable and accordingly the management was directed to reinstate the workman with 20% backwages. That award is under challenge before me. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that the workman was not even qualified to be appointed as a proof reader and he was occasionally engaged as a proof reader. It is further contended that the management did not deny him any W.P. © No.5374/08 2 employment but he abandoned employment himself. 4. From a reading of the award itself I find that the management themselves had issued a certificate namely, Ext.W2 marked in the industrial dispute, to the effect that the workman had been working as a proof reader in the management establishment for the last 4 years. Further I find that the management themselves had transferred the workman from their Kottayam unit to their Kochi unit. As regards his abandonment of employment, the workman had specifically proved that he applied for leave and when he came for work after the period of leave was over, he was denied employment. In the wake of these evidence, I do not find any perversity in the assessment of evidence by the Labour Court without which finding I cannot interfere with the award of the Labour Court. Therefore I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P. © No.5374/08 3