IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2008 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 636 of 2005(A) ------------------------ ID.3/1999 of INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER: --------------------- SECRETARY, MALSYA VYAVASAYA THOZHILALI UNION, SEETHI NIVAS, THUNDATHUMKADAVU, VARAPPUZHA P.O., REP. BY K.K.S.MOHAMED. BY ADV. SRI.PAULSON C.VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. M/S.KALAPURAKAL INDUSTRIES, EDAKOCHI, KOCHI-6, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER. 2. MR. THANKAPPAN, S/O.AIYAN KUNJU, BIJU BHAVAN, PORAKKADU, ALAPPUZHA. 3. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.JAYAKRISHNAN - R1 SRI.A.BIJU MANOHAR - R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.636/2005 A APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE CLAIM STATEMENT FILED BY THE UNION. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE MANAGEMENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE AWARD DTD. 1/06/2004 PASSED THE THIRD RESPONDENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE CROSS EXAMINATION OF FIRST MANAGEMENT WITNESS (MW1). /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.636 OF 2005 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT The Union in I.D.No.3 of 1999 before the Industrial Tribunal, Alappuzha is the petitioner herein, who challenges Ext.P3 award passed by the Tribunal in that I.D. The issue referred for adjudication was, “Whether the retrenchment of 14 workmen (list annexed) without any reason is justifiably? If not, what relief they are entitled to get?” The Tribunal found that these 14 workmen were engaged by the management through a Contractor, who was later impleaded as the additional 3rd management. On that finding, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the workmen are not entitled to any reliefs in the I.D. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner this finding of fact is totally perverse. He points out that the 2nd respondent Sri. Thankappan has not even cared to appear before W.P.(c)No.636/08 2 the Tribunal and evidence adduced by the management itself would lead to the conclusion that the said Sri. Thankappan was also an employee only. He has been described as a Contractor only for the purpose of denying the benefits legally due to the employees from the 1st respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore would submit that Ext.P3 award is totally perverse and is liable to be interfered. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the management would contend that he had produced a contract agreement between the 1st respondent and the said Sri. Thankappan pursuant to which only the workmen were employed as contract labourers. He points out that the Tribunal had discussed the evidence in detail and come to the conclusion only on the basis of evidence on record that the workers were actually workers of the Contractor and not of the 1st respondent which is not liable to be interfered with by this Court. The contention is that this is purely a question of appreciation of evidence and this Court cannot interfere with such findings of fact unless it is demonstrably perverse which is not the case here. He would point out that even assuming that the finding is wrong that cannot automatically lead to the W.P.(c)No.636/08 3 conclusion that it is perverse and therefore this Court cannot interfere with findings of facts in Ext.P3. He further points out that as held in the award itself, the establishment itself was closed long back and MW1, one of the parents of the 1st respondent is now working in a medical store and that he is now facing proceedings for recovery of the loan amounts by the bank from whom the establishment had taken loan for repayment of which more than crore of rupees would have to be paid for paying which he has no means. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. The learned counsel for the petitioner would draw my attention to Ext.P4 deposition of the management witness which according to him would show that the said Sri. Thankappan was not actually a Contractor at all, but only one of the workers and the agreement produced as a contract between the 1st respondent and the said Sri. Thankappan is a sham document created for the purpose of the case. He points out that the 1st respondent himself has agreed in Ext.P4 deposition that the Sri. Thankappan was also being paid salary. But a reading of the award and Ext.P4 deposition, I cannot come to the conclusion that the findings in Ext.P3 are perverse. The W.P.(c)No.636/08 4 findings can also be read as Sri. Thankappan was also being engaged as a worker in addition to as a Contractor for which he was being paid salary separately. Apart from that Ext.P4 does not show that the findings that there was a contract between the management and the said Sri. Thankappan is perverse as such. It is only another conclusion which may be possible. When the Tribunal arrives at one conclusion the fact that on the same evidence another man would have come to a different conclusion is not a ground for interference with the awards of Industrial Tribunals and Labour Courts by this Court. In such circumstances I am unable to find any perversity in the findings of the Tribunal. In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with Ext.P3. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.636/08 5