IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 OP.NO. 4829 of 1998(Y) ------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- K.P. CHAND,S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN, AGED 33 YEARS, MANAGER, ASHWINI HOSPITAL, TALAP, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.RAMADASAN SRI.A.K.ALEX RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1.MS.SUJANA.P.P.NURSING ASSISTANT, ASHWINI HOSPITAL, TALAP, KANNUR.2. REP; BY THE SECRETARY, CANNANORE. DISTRICT PRIVATE HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL SHOP EMPLOYEES UNION, CITU, KANNUR. 2. THE LABOUR COURT KANNUR. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP; BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SEFRETARIAT,TRIVANDRUM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER K.S.MOHAMMED HASHIM SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/11/2009, THE COURT ON 24/11/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN,J. ============ O.P.NO. 4829 OF 1998 ================= Dated this the 24th day of November 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the Management in ID.No.45/96 before the Labour Court, Kannur. He is challenging Ext.P7 award passed by the Labour Court in that I.D. 2. The issues referred for adjudication in the I.D are as follows:- 1. Whether the alleged denial of employment to Kum.Sujana.P.P., Nursing Assistant, by the management of Aswini Hospital is justifiable or not? 2. If not, what are the legal benefits to which she is entitled? 3. The workman contended that she joined the service of the petitioner, which is a Hospital, as a Nursing Assistant in September 1993 and continued to work as such till 5.2.1996 and she was denied work thereafter. The workman contended that the motive of the management for denying her work is the claim made by the workman by herself and through union for increase in wages, since she was not being given even the minimum wages fixed by the government, but only 400/- per month. 4. The management admitted the presence of the workman in their O.P.NO. 4829 OF 1998 2 hospital during the period in question. The contention of the management was that she was not a Nursing Assistant or a regular workman of the hospital but was only undergoing training at the request of the workman herself for intermittent periods. Evidence was adduced by both sides. The workman examined herself and another workman in the hospital as witnesses. The management examined one witness. After taking evidence on both sides, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the case of the management is not believable and accepted the case of the workman, directing reinstatement of the workman with backwages and continuity of service. That award, Ext.P7, is under challenge in this writ petition. 5. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 6. Before going into the contentions of the parties, I must remind myself of the scope of my jurisdiction in dealing with challenge against the awards of Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals. It is settled law that this court cannot interfere with an award in I.D.No.45/96 rendered on the basis of the findings of fact, unless the findings are perverse. In this case what the Labour Court has done is to assess the evidence of both sides and to come to a conclusion as to who should be believed in so far as what was available before the Labour Court was only oral evidence. The Labour O.P.NO. 4829 OF 1998 3 Court considered the plea of workman and gave elaborate reasons for accepting the case of the workman. The Labour Court found series of discrepancies in the case of the management also. On reading of Ext.P7 award I have no reason to come to the conclusion that the findings of the Labour Court on evidence is in any way perverse. Therefore, the challenge against Ext.P7 award fails and accordingly, the original petition is dismissed. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE mns