IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2009 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1931 OP.No.18813 of 2001(M) --------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- KERALA KHADI & VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. BY MR.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS, ADVOCATE. MR.C.S.MANILAL, ADVOCATE. MR.V.V.JOSHI, SC, KHADI BOARD. RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LABOUR AND REHABILITATION (A) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SMT.N.S. CHANDRAMATHI, CHANDRA NILAYAM, THAIVILA ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY MR.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY, ADVOCATE. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No.18813/2001 Order on C.M.P.No.30413/2001 in OP.No.18813/2001 Closed. 30.03.2009 Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE. A P P E N D I X PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 : COPY OF the GOVERNMENT ORDER No.G.O.(Rt) No.1277/95/LBR DTD. 07.06.95. EXT. P2 : COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED NIL. EXT. P3 : COPY OF the GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(Rt) No.3184/2000/LBR DTD. 4.9.2000. EXT. P4 : COPY OF the LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 28.9.1993. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. // True Copy // P.A. to Judge. smp S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ O.P.No.18813 OF 2001 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT The Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board, the management in I.D.No.91 of 1995 before the Labour Court, Kollam is the petitioner herein. They are challenging Ext.P3 award passed by the Labour Court in that Industrial Dispute. The issues referred for adjudication were: “(i) Termination of services of Smt. N.S. Chandramathi, Instructor, Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board, Thiruvananthapuram. (ii) Relief entitled to the workman. The Labour Court considered the issues involved as follows: “ 6. I shall first consider the plea of the management based on law of limitation. There is no period of limitation prescribed in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for making a reference under section 10(1). It is for the appropriate Government to consider whether it is expedient or not to make the reference. The words “at any time” used in section 10(1) do not admit of any limitation in making an order of reference. The laws of limitation which might bar any Civil Court from giving a remedy in respect of lawful rights cannot be applied by an Industrial Court. Even then it is desirable that there should be no unreasonable or inordinate delay in making a reference. But delay or latches cannot be made ground for rejecting the reference. In the matter of making a O.P.No.18813/01 2 reference the 'appropriate Government' is the supreme authority and the Industrial Court should not try to encroach upon those functions while exercising its adjudicatory authority. It is a matter concerning the administrative action of the Government and the Industrial Court is not competent to go in to the question of delay in making the reference. The Industrial Court is duty bound to decide the question on merits and the ground of delay cannot be made a jurisdictional matter before the court. Therefore I find that the contention of the management that the claim is barred by limitation cannot be accepted. 7. I shall next consider the question whether the contention of the management that at the time of termination of service the management has paid her entitlements and that she accepted the same is true. This contention is vehimentally denied by the workman. There is absolutely no evidence on the side of the management to show that this workman was served with a notice prior to her termination from service. There is no evidence also to show that she was even paid notice pay and compensation as contemplated by law. In view of this I cannot accept that contention of the management as well. In short I find that the termination of the workman from service is illegal. An award is therefore passed for reinstatement of the workman back in service with all attendant service benefits”. The said award is under challenge before me. 2. The only contention raised before me is that the findings of fact in the award are perverse. On a reading of the award, I am unable to countenance that contention. There is absolutely no perversity whatsoever in the findings of the Labour Court. Without a finding of perversity, I cannot O.P.No.18813/01 3 interfere with an award of the Labour Court on merits on the question of findings of fact in exercise of my discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is the trite law. The fact that another person would come to a different conclusion on the same evidence is also not a ground for interference, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with an award of the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this original petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd O.P.No.18813/01 4