IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2008 / 8TH MAGHA 1929 OP.No. 2545 of 1999(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ O.CHANDRASEKHARAN NIKHIL NIVAS NEAR HEALTH CENTRE AZHIKODE, KANNUR-9. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER SRI.M.VIJAYAKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. LABOUR COURT, KANNUR. 2. P.P.BABU @ JAYACHANDRA BABU MANNAPOYIL HOUSE KAPPAD, P.O.KAPPAD, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.G.SARATHKUMAR SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.T.T.MUHAMOOD SRI.PANKAJ VIJAYAN THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP NO. 2545/1999/C -2- ORDER ON CMP NOS.4304/1999 & 26245/1999 IN 2545/1999 DISMISSED SD/- 28.1.2008 S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1: COPY OF THE AWARD BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN I.D.44 OF 1996 DT.31.7.1997 PUBLISHED IN KERALA GAZETTE NO.20 DT. 19.5.1998. EXT. P2: COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE A.M.V.I., KANNUR. EXT. P3: COPY OF THE MEMO ISSUED BY THE RTO. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE JP S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ======================= O.P. No. 2545 of 1999(C) ======================= Dated this the 28th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT The management in ID No.44/1996 before the Labour Court, Kannur is the petitioner herein, who challenges Ext.P1 award of Labour Court in that ID, whereby the workman involved in the industrial dispute was directed to be reinstated with backwages and continuity of service. The issue referred for adjudication was one of denial of employment to the 2nd respondent herein. The only contention raised by the management before the Labour Court was that he was only a temporary employee. On the basis of evidence adduced by both sides, the Labour Court held that he was a permanent employee. The Labour Court relied on the documents of the management themselves, as also the fact that the workman was enrolled as a member of the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund to come to the conclusion that the workman was a permanent employee of the management. That being so, I cannot hold that the findings O.P. No. 2545/1999/C -2- of facts entered by the Labour Court are in any way perverse. 2. However, the petitioner has produced a certified copy of the report of the A.M.V.I. of RTO Office, Kannur to the effect that the stage carriage in which the workman was working as a cleaner was dismantled and sold in pieces on 31.1.1996. Although the 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit, he does not say that the management has another vehicle which is being plied. That being so, I do not think that it is proper to order reinstatement of the workman. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.35,000/- as compensation to the 2nd respondent in lieu of reinstatement. With the above modification of Ext.P1 award, I dispose of this original petition. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE jp