IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2008 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 21890 of 2004(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SRI.M.SIVADASAN (REPRESENTATIVE OF MANAGEMENT) PROPRIETOR, LAKSHMI PRINTERS, KATTANGAL, REGIONAL ENGINEERING COLLEGE P.O., KOZHIKODE, PIN 673 601. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SRI.P.A.UNNIKRISHNAN, ASHARIKANDIYIL, P.O.CHOOLUR, REGIONAL ENGINEERING COLLEGE, PIN-673 601. 2. THE SECRETARY, KOZHIKODE PRESS WORKERS UNION (CITU), ANIHALL ROAD, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ANTONY FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 21890/2004. ------------------------------------------------------------------ EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF AWARD IN I.D.NO. 1/2003 DT. 7-5-2004. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 21890 of 2004 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 3rd June, 2008. J U D G M E N T The management in I.D.No. 1/2003 before the Industrial Tribunal, Kozhikode is the petitioner herein. He challenges Ext. P1 award passed by the Tribunal in that I.D, whereby the petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 18,900/- as compensation for illegal denial of employment to the workman involved in the dispute. The issue referred for adjudication was: “Whether the denial of employment to Sri. P.A. Unnikrishnan worker of Lakshmi Printers, Kattangal, Regional Engineering College, Kozhikode with effect from January, 2002 is justifiable. If not what relief the worker is entitled to?” The workman examined himself and another independent witness, who was conducting another business near the establishment of the petitioner to prove that the workman was an employee working with the petitioner-management. In answer to the same, the petitioner examined himself as management witness as also the Panchayat Secretary to prove that the workman was receiving unemployment wages. The petitioner would contend that the workman had produced Ext. W2 employment certificate allegedly issued by the petitioner forging the petitioner's signature. That conduct of the workman itself is sufficient to deny him reliefs, is the contention raised by the petitioner. In addition to that, the petitioner would contend that the fact that the workman was receiving unemployment wages is another circumstance which would go to show that there was no employer- employee relationship between the petitioner and the workman in question. On these grounds, the petitioner would contend that the findings in Ext. P1 award is clearly perverse and unsustainable. 2. I have considered the contentions of the petitioner's advocate. There is no documentary evidence in the case except Ext. W2 which has not been accepted boy the Labour Court as sufficient W.P.C. No. 21890/2004. -: 2 :- to prove the employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and the workman in question. But the Labour Court relied on the evidence of the workman himself and that of an independent witness who was running another business near the business premises of the petitioner to come to the conclusion in favour of the workman. As such, clearly, this is a question of appreciation of evidence. Unless it is demonstrably perverse, this Court cannot interfere with the findings in the award in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The fact that the workman was receiving unemployment wages would not prove that there was no employer- employee relationship between the petitioner and the workman. At the most, it would only show that the workman was illegally receiving unemployment wages after being employed by the petitioner. In fact, the workman had given a plausible explanation for the same to the effect that the petitioner himself permitted him to apply for unemployment wages on the ground that the employment with the petitioner is not substantial. As such, that piece of evidence cannot offset the independent evidence of a witness who spoke in favour of the workman whose evidence could not be shaken in cross examination by the petitioner. Therefore, I do not find any perversity in the findings in Ext. P1 award and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/