IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2009 / 5TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 4161 of 2004(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ V.A. ZACHARIAH, VELLOPPARAMBIL HOUSE, MEENADOM P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.K.SUNIL RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE PRESIDENT, MEENADOM MILK SUPPLIES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.K 204, MEENADOM P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, MEENADOM MILK SUPPLIES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.K.204, MEENADOM P.O., KOTTAYAM. 3. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, KERALA CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.KOSHY GEORGE FOR R1-2 SRI.ALEX GEORGE FOR R1-2 SRI.GEORGE ZACHARIAH FOR R1-2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/07/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.4161/04 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE SLIP ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT SHOWING THE ARREARS OF WAGES DT 1.3.85. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE SHO APPEAL S.A.14/87 FILED BY THE PETITIONER DT DECEMBER 1997. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENTS SOCIETY IN S.A.14/87 DT 17.2.88. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN ARC 97/95 FILED BY THE PETITIONER DT 30.7.95. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN ARC 97/95 DT 8.2.2000. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT REQUESTING WAGES, ARREARS AND OTHER DUES DT 22.12.86. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON AWARD IN ARC 97/95 DT 25.1.2001. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL AP 54/01 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 1.6.2001. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT PRODUCING THE ORIGINAL OF EXT.P1 DT 19.9.2002. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMNT DT 30.12.2002 IN AP 54/01. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 4161 OF 2004 (U) ===================== Dated this the 27th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims that he was working as a salesman under the 1st respondent. According to him, he was denied employment from 31/3/87. Although he moved the appellate authority under the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, the appeal was rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Ext.P4, plaint in ARC 97/95 before the Arbitrator. Respondents filed Ext.P5 written statement contending that the petitioner was a member of the society and that he was working on a fixed honorarium. It was the case of the Society that there was no employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and the society. 2. Arbitrator tried ARC No.97/95 along with ARC 98/95, filed by another employee and rendered Ext.P7 common award. In the award, Arbitrator held the petitioner to be an employee of the society, but however came to the conclusion that he could not prove that he was denied employment after 31/3/87. Though, his claim for wages was declined, society was directed that the petitioner be paid gratuity that was due. Petitioner filed an WPC 4161/04 :2 : appeal before the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal and Ext.P8 is the memorandum of appeal, which was numbered as AP 54/01. During the pendency of appeal, along with Ext.P9, petitioner produced certain additional documents, which were accepted on record. Finally, by Ext.P10, the common judgment passed by the Tribunal, the appeal has been dismissed. It is in these circumstances this writ petition is filed, challenging the aforesaid order and judgment. 3. In so far as the additional documents which were produced by the petitioner is concerned, a reading of Ext.P10 judgment shows that, the Tribunal refused to take cognizance of those documents for the reason that these were photocopies and therefore could not be admitted in evidence. In my view, the Tribunal ought not have taken such a hyper technical view of the matter. Tribunal is not circumscribed by the provisions of the Evidence Act or other technical rules. On the other hand, the endeavour of the Tribunal should have been to do justice between the parties. So viewed, I feel that the Tribunal should not have declined to consider the documents for the only reason that these were photocopies. On the other hand, Tribunal should have WPC 4161/04 :3 : considered the documents and could have declined to act upon the documents, provided there was some valid reasons for doing so. However, since the Tribunal has blindly declined to act upon the documents, I cannot uphold the stand of the Tribunal as reflected in Ext.P10 judgment. 4. Ext.P10 judgment, in so far as it concerns Appeal No.54/01 will stand set aside and the 3rd respondent is directed to reconsider AP No.54/01 filed by the petitioner with notice to the parties and as expeditiously as possible, duly adverting to the material on record. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 3 months of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp