IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST JUNE 2007 / 31ST JYAISHTA 1929 WA.No. 1442 of 2007() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.38385/2002 Dated 30/03/2007 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER --------------------------- M/S.HINDUSTAN FOUNDRY PRODUCTS ENGINEERING AND FOUNDERS, POOTHOL, TRICHUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER TONY JOHN ALAPPATT, S/O.LATE A.JOHN ALAPPATT, AGED 45, RESIDING ALAPPATT THOPPIL HOUSE, CHURCH ROAD, KARANJIRA P.O., TRICHUR - 2. BY ADV. SRISHIJU VARGHEESE SRI.C.S.YESUDAS RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ----------------------------------- 1. GENERAL SECRETARY, TRICHUR ENGINEERING WORKERS UNION, MANNADIAR LANE, TRICHUR - 1. 2. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD. R1 BY ADV.SRI.RANJIT THAMPAN R2 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.MEERA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/06/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A.No.1442 of 2007 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 21st day of June, 2007 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and also perused the impugned orders passed by the learned Single Judge. We intend to say that the learned Single Judge has marshalled the facts very well and thereafter applying the first principles of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act has come to the conclusion that the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal does not call for his interference. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant reiterated the submissions that were made before the learned Single Judge even before us also. In our opinion, reiteration of the said submissions and answering of the same once again may not be necessary for the disposal of this writ appeal. Therefore, concurring with the findings and conclusions reached by the learned Single Judge, we intend to reject the writ appeal. Accordingly the writ appeal is rejected without even reference to the respondent. Ordered accordingly. In view of the order passed in the writ appeal, the relief sought in I.A.No.507 of 2007 need not be considered by this Court. Accordingly, the said I.A. is also rejected. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (K.T.SANKARAN) JUDGE vns