IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2008 / 15TH SRAVANA 1930 W.A.No. 1702 of 2008 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.16531/2007 Dated 08/06//2007 .................... APPELLANT/ PETITIONER : ------------------------------------- THE SECRETARY, TRIVANDRUM CLUB, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. D. KISHORE. RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS : --------------------------------------------- 1. C. SOBHANA, CHERUVALLY KONATHU KUNNUMPURATHU VEEDU, VANDA, KARIPUR, NEDUMANGADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LABOUR AND REHABILITATION (A) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R2 & R3 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.MEERA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L. DATTU, C.J. & A.K. BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------- W.A. No.1702 of 2008 ------------------------------------ Dated this, the 18th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L. DATTU, C.J. This writ appeal is directed against the orders passed by the Learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.16531 of 2007 dated 8th June, 2007. 2. The employer, being aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court in I.D. No.46/2003 (Ext.P4 award), was before this Court in Writ Petition No.165431 of 2007. 3. In the writ petition, petitioner, though, has raised several contentions, from the orders passed by the learned Single Judge it is evident that what was argued before him was only two issues. Firstly, that the workman voluntarily abandoned the service of the appellant and the management never terminated the workman from service nor denied employment to the workman, and secondly, since the issue referred for adjudication is denial of employment and while giving evidence the workman's case was that she was dismissed from service, and therefore, the labour court could not have gone behind the issue referred for adjudication. W.A.No.1702 OF 2008 :: 2 :: 4. The learned Single Judge has answered both the issues, keeping in view the evidence led in by the parties before the Labour Court and the findings of the Labour Court in the award passed. The learned Single Judge has observed in his order that the workman is a Sweeper and she is illiterate and she may not know the difference between the dismissal from service and denial of employment. Therefore, the learned Judge is of the opinion that the award passed by the Labour Court cannot be taken exception to. In so far as the delay in approaching the Labour Court, the learned Judge has answered it with reference to the pleadings made by the workman and the employer. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on the two issues answered by the learned Single Judge, has no grievance and in fact he cannot have any grievance. 5. The learned counsel, Sri.Kishore, submits that several other issues were argued before the learned Judge and those issues were not answered by the learned Judge. We are not prepared to accept that submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. If for any reason, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant had argued those issues and those issues are not considered, appropriate course would be to file an appropriate review petition before the learned Judge who has W.A.No.1702 OF 2008 :: 3 :: disposed of the writ petition. Therefore, since we concur with the findings and conclusion reached by the learned Judge on the two issues raised by the petitioner/appellant, one and the only course open to us is to reject the writ appeal and we do so. H.L.DATTU, CHIEF JUSTICE. A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE DK.