IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2008 / 20TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 24095 of 2008(R) -------------------------- ID.1/2008 of INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER: ---------------- T.L.JOHN, THAMARAYUR HOUSE, KOZHUKULLY, CHEERAKAVU ROAD, AYYAPPANKAVU P.O., THRISSUR 680751. BY ADV. SRI.P.RADHAKRISHNAN (1) SRI.MADHU RADHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------- 1. SATELLITE CABLE T.V.NEW WORK KARTHIKA COMPLEX, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-3, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, JOSHY V.T. 2. THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. I.V. PRAMOD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.24095 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT The workman in I.D.No.1 of 2008 before the Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad is challenging that part of Ext.P3 award in that I.D., whereby after holding that the workman was denied employment unjustifiably, the Tribunal limited the compensation to Rs.10,000/- denying backwages. As is clear from the above, the issue referred for adjudication was denial of employment to the workman. The Tribunal found that the workman was denied employment unjustifiably, but taking into account the fact that the workman was subsequently employed with another Cable T.V. Net Work namely, Akshaya Cable Net Work deriving income of almost double the salary the workman was being paid by the management in the I.D., the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the workman is not entitled to any backwages since during the period after his denial of employment, he was gainfully employed elsewhere. The workman's contention is that this finding is wrong because the workman became regularly employed with W.P.(c)No.24095/08 2 another Cable Net Work only in 2006 and not immediately after 16.12.1999 when the workman was denied employment. Therefore, according to the workman, he should have been awarded backwages also for the period from 17.12.99 till 2006 and compensation computed accordingly. 2. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner workman. It is not disputed before me that the workman does not any longer want to be reinstated as an employee of the management. In fact it is admitted that the workman presently is the managing partner of the very same Akshaya Cable Net Work. The management produced Ext.P5 Customer/Consumer Card of Akshaya Cable Net Work, which contained handwriting and signature, which the management claimed to be that of the petitioner. Although the workman denied the handwriting and signature therein, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there is visible similarity between his admitted handwriting and signatures, and those in Ext.M5. The Tribunal, therefore, inferred that the workman had worked with Akshaya Cable Network either as an employee or as its owner during the period after his denial of employment. The management had earlier approached this Court challenging the award passed by W.P.(c)No.24095/08 3 the Tribunal earlier and by Ext.P2 judgment, the earlier award was quashed and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration, after affording opportunity to adduce evidence to the management consequent to which only the impugned award has been passed. The Tribunal noted that the said writ petition was filed in 2003 and the same was disposed of only in 2008. During this period although the workman could have claimed wages under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, the workman did not move this Court for wages under Section 17B. The Tribunal held this also as a circumstance, which would lend credence to the contention of the management that the workman was gainfully employed elsewhere during the said period. It is taking into account these circumstances that the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the workman is not entitled to any backwages, but limited compensation to Rs.10,000/-. I do not find any perversity in the said findings, without finding which I cannot hold that the award is in any way unsustainable. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.24095/08 4