IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 10TH OCTOBER 2011 / 18TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 8456 of 2010(F) ------------------------- ID.23/2005 of LABOUR COURT, KANNUR .................... PETITIONER : ------------ SUDHAKARA, S/O.LATE KRISHNOGI, NEAR GEETHA TALKIES, BEACH ROAD, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SMT.ASMA, W/O.LATE ABBAS, SAKKURA HOUSE, HASHIM STREET, THARUVATH, KASARAGOD. 2. THE LABOUR COURT, KANNUR. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR SRI.R.RANJITH R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. G. GOPAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 8456 of 2010(F) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT. P1. COPY OF THE AWARD PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT DATED 11.8.2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.8456 of 2010 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT Ext.P1 award passed by the Labour Court, Kannur in I.D.No.23 of 2005 is under challenge in this writ petition. The brief facts of the case are as follows. 2. The petitioner was employed as a workman in Sakkura Watch Company run by the first respondent. The case set out by the petitioner-workman is that on 26.10.2004 when the District Labour Officer visited the shop where he was employed, he complained that he was not being paid salary properly and that as a result thereof he was denied employment from that day onwards. It is stated that though he had thereafter sent Ext.W1 notice dated 10.11.2004 demanding employment, Ext.M2 reply dated 22.11.2004 was sent asking him to report for duty, but when he reported for duty he was denied employment. The management contended that the workman was irregular in reporting for work, that he was running a watch repairing centre near the first respondent's shop in partnership with another W.P(C).No.8456 of 2010 -:2:- person and that he is running a taxi of which he is the owner. It was contended that the workman left the employment on his own and that he was not entitled to any relief. The Labour Court held on an analysis of the evidence, oral and documentary, available in the case that from 1999 onwards the workman was owning an autorikshaw and was running it himself and that there was no denial of employment. The Labour Court accordingly held that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Hence this writ petition. 3. I heard Sri.T.G.Rajendran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.M.T.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. I have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. The case set out by the petitioner before the Labour Court and before this Court in the instant writ petition is that he was denied employment from 26.10.2004 onwards. However, when examined as WW1, the petitioner deposed that from 1999 onwards he is owning an autorikshaw, that he possesses a licence to run the autorikshaw and that he had paid the contribution to the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund in his own name. Though during the course of arguments it was contended before the Labour Court that the petitioner's brother was driving the autorikshaw, the W.P(C).No.8456 of 2010 -:3:- Labour Court held that as the contribution was paid in the name of the petitioner himself it cannot be said that his brother was driving the autorikshaw as contended. The Labour Court accordingly held that ever since 1999 he is gainfully employed as an autorikshaw driver and his claim that he was denied employment from 26.10.2004 cannot be believed. The said finding is a finding of fact arrived at on the basis of the evidence on record and cannot be said to be a perverse finding warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I therefore, find no grounds to interfere with Ext.P1 award. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C).No.8456 of 2010 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 10th October, 2011