IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD SEPTEMBER 2008 / 12TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 26612 of 2008(R) -------------------------- ID.67/2004 of INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER: ------------ P.T. JAMES, PROPRIETOR, M/S. ELITE HOTEL, FORTKOCHI-1. BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISH SMT.M.MANJU RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. M.O. POULOSE, MOOLAMKUZHI HOUSE, KUTHIATHODE P.O., KODAMTHRUTHU, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DIST. 2. BIJU THOMAS, THAZHATHUVEETIL, THURAVOOR, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA. 3. MATHUKUTTY, OLIKAL HOUSE, KERUTHODE P.O., MUNDAKAYAM, KOTTAYAM DIST. 4. N. PONNAPPAN, KURUVAMPURATH, KODAMTHURUTHU, KUTHIATHODE P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA. 5. PURUSHOTHAMA MALLYA, 8/423, T.D. NORTH GATE, SOUTH CHERAI, KOCHI-2. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 26612 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 3rd September, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner, who is the management in I.D.No. 67/2004, challenges Ext. P1 award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Alappuzha in that I.D. The issue referred for adjudication was: “Whether the alleged denial of employment to Sri. M.O. Poulose, Biju Thomas, Mathukutty, N. Ponnapan and Purushothaman Mallya is justifiable? If not what relief they are entitled to?” The evidence in the case consisted of the oral evidence of the workmen and the management. There was no other documentary or other evidence. After assessing the probative value of the oral evidence, the Tribunal chose to believe the version of the workmen. But, instead of directing reinstatement, the Tribunal directed the management to pay compensation to the workmen at the rate of two months' last drawn wages for every year of service rendered by the workmen with the management. That award is under challenge before me. 2. I have considered the contention of the petitioner. According to him, the versions of the workmen were contradictory in their proof affidavit and the claim statement which itself would go to show that the findings in the award are perverse. 3. I have gone through the award in detail. The Industrial Tribunal considered the oral testimony of both the management witness and the workmen witness in depth and came to the conclusion that the workmen were denied employment unjustly. I do not find any perversity in the same. It is settled law that High Court can interfere with awards in industrial disputes only if the finding on fact therein is perverse. Even if this Court or another person looking at the same evidence may come to a different conclusion, that is not W.P.C. No. 26612/08. -: 2 :- a ground for interference with the award. In so far as I do not find any perversity in the findings on evidence by the Industrial Tribunal, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.