IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2010 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1931 WA.No. 413 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.1421/2010 Dated 15/01/2010 APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN THE W.P:- --------------------------------------------- GOPIMOHAN, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.P.K.GOPALA PILLAI, MOHANS INTERNATIONAL, KOCHUPILAMMOOD, KOLLAM, RESIDING AT GREEN HILLS, MUNDAKKAL WEST, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS IN THE W.P:- --------------------------------------- 1. C.R.UDAYAPRAKASH, PRAKASH MANDIRAM, MYLAKKAD.P.O, KOLLAM, THROUGH HIS REPRESENTATIVE G.JAYAPRAKASH, GENERAL SECRETARY, ALL KERALA CASHEW FACTORY STAFF(PVT) ASSOCIATION (INTUC), JETTY ROAD, KOLLAM. 2. THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL & LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM. SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BENJAMIN PAUL. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN Ag. CJ & C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.A. 413 OF 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH, 2010. J U D G M E N T Raman, Ag. CJ. Alleging denial of employment, first respondent raised an industrial dispute. Eventually, Ext.P4 award was passed on 28.10.2006 But since the establishment was closed with effect from 31.12.2001 no reinstatement was ordered. The relief was therefore, moulded accordingly. Petitioner did not comply with the award even after three years. Hence a petition under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act was filed. The amount as per the award was quantified and the appellant was directed to pay the same. 2. In so far as Ext.P4 has become final, appellant cannot have any valid denial as against it. In the circumstances, the learned Single Judge declined to set aside the order passed under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, appellant was given time to deposit the amount covered by Ext.P5 till 28.2.2010. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal is filed. 3. The contention now raised is that denial of employment to the first respondent is not an industrial dispute since he was employed in a WA 413 OF 2010 2 supervisory capacity and not a worker within the meaning of the Industrial Dispute Act. Since Ext.P4 award has become final, this contention raised at a belated stage is no longer available to the appellant. In such circumstances, the appeal fails. It is dismissed. P.R. RAMAN, (Ag. CHIEF JUSTICE) C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, (JUDGE). knc/-