IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH JUNE 2008 / 23RD JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 35956 of 2003(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ NARIKKUNI SERVICE SAHAKARANA BANK LTD., REP. BY THE SECRETARY, NARAYANAN, S/O.KUTTAN, NARIKKUNI PO. KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN SRI.JOHNY SEBASTIAN KOZHIKODE RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. T.SAITHUTTY, GENERAL SECRETARY, ALL KERALA SAHAKARANA BANK DEPOSIT COLLECTORS ASSOCIATION SAMSTHANA COMMITTEE, C/O.PERUMANNA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, KOZHIKODE. 2. P.P.SATHYAVATHI, ASARIKKAL HOUSE, ERAVANNUR P.O. NARIKKUNI. 3. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.MANJERI SUNDERRAJ FOR R1,2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SUDHA DEVI. FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/06/2008, THE COURT, ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 35956/2003. ------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF AWARD IN I.D.NO. 63/99 OF LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE. EXT.P2 APPLICATION DT. 20-7-2001. EXT.P3 VOUOCHER DT. 27-7-2001. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 35956 of 2003 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 13th June, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the management in I.D. No.63/1999 before the Labour Court, Kozhikode. They are challenging Ext. P1 award of the Labour Court in that I.D. The issue referred for adjudication was: “Whether there is a denial of employment to Smt. P.P. Sathyavathi by the management of the Narikkuni Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., Narikkuni P.O as alleged by the union? If so, what relief she is entitled to.” Although the petitioner-management filed a written statement, they did not adduce any evidence. Therefore, relying on the evidence of the workman, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the workman was employed by the petitioner-Bank and she was denied employment. Consequently, the workman was directed to be reinstated with backwages and other benefits. That award is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner would contend that although the petitioner entered appearance and filed written statement, the petitioner could not take part in the proceedings before the Labour Court, as the representative of the petitioner was not present before the Labour Court on the day when evidence was taken. He would submit that even otherwise, the Labour Court was bound to consider the contentions of the petitioner before passing the award. 3. I have considered the contentions of the petitioner. 4. The finding of the Labour Court is as follows: “The worker as WW1 has deposed that she was employed as Nithya Nidhi deposit Collector of the Narikkuni Service Co- operative Bank Ltd., vide appointment order dated 29.6.1999 and she was denied employment with effect from 13.10.1992 without any reason. She proves Ext. W1 the appointment order and Ext. W2 memo issued to her dated 13.6.1997 requiring her not to make collections until further orders. There is nothing to disbelieve the unchallenged testimony of WW1 the worker. Accepting the evidence of the worker, I hold that there is denial of employment to her and that the same is not justifiable. W.P.C. No. 35956/2003. -: 2 :- In the result, an award is passed holding that there is denial of employment to Smt. P.P. Sathyavathi by the management and directing the management to reinstate her with backwages and other benefits.” Therefore, the decision was on the basis of the orders issued by the petitioner themselves. No contra evidence has been adduced by the petitioner-Bank to controvert the evidence of the workman. Absolutely, no reason whatsoever has been mentioned in the writ petition as to why the petitioner could not take part in the proceedings before the Labour Court after entering appearance and filing written statement. Simply because the petitioner has filed a written statement without evidence in support of the pleadings, the Labour Court is not bound to accept those contentions. On the other hand, the workman has gone to the box and proved Exts. W1 and W2, which are the appointment order issued to the workman by the Bank themselves and the order given to the workman directing her not to make collections until further orders. These two documents are clearly sufficient to prove the workman's employment and denial of employment. The contentions of the petitioner could have been accepted by the Labour Court only if the petitioner had adduced sufficient evidence in support of those contentions, which, evidently, they have not. No plausible explanation is forthcoming for the same. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain the challenge against the impugned award and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/