IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 16TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 23637 of 2004(L) (CHALLENGING THE AWARD IN I.D 45/95 OF THE LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM) PETITIONER: --------------- SRI.P.N.VELAYUDHAN, POTTASSERY HOUSE, CHERANALLOOR POST, PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS: 1. SRI.K.V.KUNJAN, KUNNIMALATHU HOUSE, VENGOLA POST, PERUMBAVOOR. 2. SRI.R.ROSHIBAN, S/O.RAVEENDRAN, NAJALUPPADI HOUSE, PERUMBAVOOR POST. 3. SRI.C.M.SAIPRIYAN, CONTRACTOR, T.S.NO.10, AYMURI WEST, PERUMBAVOOR. 4. SRI.N.K.RAJAN, CONTRACTOR, T.S.NO.10, AYMURI WEST, PERUMBAVOOR. 5. THE LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.N.K.KARNIS FOR R2 SRI.N.SUKUMARAN-R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.C.NO.23637 OF 2004 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: Ext.P1: True copy of the award passed by the Labour Court, Ernakulam in ID 45/95. RESPONDENTS'S EXHIBITS: NIL C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 23637 OF 2004 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of September, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner was the workman and the respondents were the management in I.D.No. 45 of 1995 before the Labour Court, Ernakulam. The above Writ Petition is filed challenging the award in I.D. No.45 of 1995 to the extent it denied backwages to the petitioner during the period he was kept out of work. 2. The terms of reference which led to the aforesaid award was as follows: “Whether the denial of employment to Sri. P.N. Velayudhan by the contractor is justifiable or not? If not what relief he is entitled to?” Before the Labour Court, evidences were adduced on both sides and after a careful consideration of the rival contentions and the evidences adduced, the Labour Court passed the award finding that there was denial of employment to the workman and that there was no justification for such denial of employment. Based on the said conclusion, the petitioner was directed to be reinstated without backwages, but with continuity of service for the purpose of continuance of work and other statutory benefits. W.P.(C) NO. 23637/2004 2 3. According to the petitioner, the Labour Court had failed to consider the question of entitlement of backwages appropriately. It is his case that no evidence was adduced to the effect that he was gainfully employed elsewhere during the said period and, therefore, once the Labour Court entered the finding that he was illegally denied employment and consequently directed to be reinstated, he should not have been denied the benefit of backwages. In the context of this contention, it is only appropriate to scan the award in question to find out the reason for denial of backwages to the petitioner/workman. A perusal of the award would show that the said aspect was elaborately discussed by the Labour Court in paragraph 12 of the award, the relevant portion of which reads as follows: “................... It is evident from Ext.X1 and X1(a) that the Welfare Fund Contribution was being remitted for the worker during the period from 1982-83 to September 1991 and he is seen treated as on leave from 1.10.1991 to 31.4.1992. During 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95 he is stated to be on leave and from 1995-96 to 1998-99 he is stated to be not working and during 1.4.1998 to 30.6.1998 he is stated to be on leave, during 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, he is stated to be not working thereby no contribution towards welfare fund is seen remitted for the above period. The contract of W.P.(C) NO. 23637/2004 3 toddy shop being auctioned yearly and the conduct of the toddy shop will be continued by the contractors who successfully bid in auction though 2 subsequent contractors were impleaded as additional managements 2, 3 and 4 all the subsequent contractors were not impleaded. It is not disputed that the workman did not work under the additional managements and they have not denied employment to the workman. It is admitted that the original contractor Sri. K.V. Kunjan is not the present contractor of toddy shop No.10 and during some intermittant period toddy workers' co-operative society had conducted the toddy shops. Under the above circumstances payment of backwages cannot be allowed to the worker pursuant to his reinstatement. So the only relief which can be granted to the workman as per the reference his reinstatement into service without backwages but with continuity of service only for the purpose of continuance of work and any other statutory benefits and not for any monetary benefits from the contractors. Points are answered accordingly.” 4. It is thus obvious from the award in I.D. No.45 of 1995 that the petitioner was denied the benefits of backwages based on certain factual findings. The Labour Court found that the fact that the petitioner/workman did not work under the additional managements was never disputed by him. It was also found that the additional managements did not deny employment to the petitioner. The fact that the subsequent contractor who had successfully auctioned the toddy shop was not impleaded as additional management was also taken into consideration W.P.(C) NO. 23637/2004 4 by the Labour Court. It was on the basis of such findings that the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner/workman was not entitled to backwages. Since the aforesaid finding was based on the facts and evidences available before the Labour Court, this Court is not justified in interfering with the said finding. The petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference by this Court, in the circumstances expatiated above. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court in I.D. No. 45 of 1995. There is no merit in the Writ Petition. It is accordingly dismissed. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) sp/ W.P.(C) NO. 23637/2004 5 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C) NO. 23637/2004 JUDGMENT 7th September, 2009 W.P.(C) NO. 23637/2004 6