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 MONDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER, 2008/31ST BHADRA, 1920 WA.No. 1912 of 2008 --------------------------- (AGAINST JUDT. DT. 16.7.2008 IN WPC No.15456 OF 2004) APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------ G.P.N. CASHEW, HEAD OFFICE BEACH ROAD, POST BOX NO.276, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, V.N. CHANDRA MOHAN. BY ADVS. SRI. EK. NANDAKUMAR, SRI. A.K. JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR, SRI. K. JOHN MATHAI, & SRI. ANIL D. NAIR. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------------------------- 1. THE GENERAL SECRETARY, KERALA CASHEW STAFF AND WORKERS UNION (AITUC), CMP OFFICE, ANDAMUKKAM, KOLLAM. 2. LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI. SUDHEESHKAR R2 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K. MEERA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L. DATTU, C.J. & A.K. BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A. No. 1912 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2008 Judgment H.L. Dattu, C. J: Appellant-Management, aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.30/1994 was before this Court in W.P.No.15456/2004. The learned Judge by his order dated 16th of July 2008 has rejected the writ petition. That is how the management is before us in this writ appeal. 2. The one and the only issue that was referred to by the State Government to the Labour Court for its adjudication was, whether denial of employment to Sri.K.Samban, Clerk with effect from 8.1.1993 is justified or not? 3. Admittedly the workman was working as a Clerk in the appellant management. He was demoted as a Watchman and was directed to report for duty as a Watchman. 4. The workman refused to accept the order of demotion and to report for duty as a Watchman. 5. The management thereafter directed the workman to report for duty at Kollam office without mentioning whether he should report for duty as a Clerk or as a Watchman. 6. After receipt of the aforesaid order, the workman informed the management that he is prepared to report for duty at Kollam office as a Clerk, provided he is paid wages for the period from December 1992 to 11/1/1993, WA.1912/2008 2 bonus for the year 1992-93 and contribution of the management towards ESI and Provident Fund for the aforesaid period. 7. After receipt of the reply, the workman was denied employment by the management. That is how the workman, after failure of the conciliation proceedings, had approached the Labour Court for redressal of his grievances. 8. The Labour Court has come to the conclusion that there is denial of employment by the management and therefore has directed the management to treat the workman as retired from service of the appellant establishment from 31/10/2003 and further has directed the establishment to pay salary at Rs.850/- per month. from 8/1/1993 to 30/11/1993 and 50% of the backwages from 1/12/1993 to 30/10/2003. 9. It is the correctness or otherwise of the award that is passed by the Labour court that was the subject matter of the writ petition. 10. The management had taken up only two contentions. Firstly, that the Labour Court has travelled beyond the scope of the reference order and secondly, there was no denial of employment to the workman and it is only the workman who had refused to report for duty at the Kollam Office pursuant to the orders issued by the management. The learned single Judge has negatived both the issues and taking into consideration that the management has closed down its establishment, has quantified the monetary benefits payable to the workman in a sum of Rs. 50,000/- instead of Rs.60,000/- quantified by the management. 11. It is this direction of the learned single Judge that is the subject matter WA.1912/2008 3 of this writ appeal. 12. Sri.Nanadakumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant management would contend that though the respondent workman was given an opportunity to report for duty at Kollam office, since the workman did not report for duty, it cannot be said that there is a denial of employment. 13. In our view, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant has no merit whatsoever. Admitted facts are, in the appellant management the respondent workman was working as a Clerk. On a later date he was asked to work as a Watchman. The workman refused to work as a Watchman. Therefore the appellant management directed the workman to report for duty at Kollam office. In the order so issued, it had not been stated whether workman should report for duty as a Clerk or as a Watchman. Immediately after receipt of the order so passed by the appellant management, the workman in fact had requested the management to inform him whether he should report for duty as a Clerk in Kollam office and further had also requested them to pay wages for the period from December 1992 to 11/1/1993 and also the other contributions like ESI, provident fund etc. Since the management was not prepared to accept and accede to the request of the workman, the workman did not report for duty. The Labour Court, keeping in view the evidence that was adduced by the management and also by the workman, has come to the conclusion that there was a denial of employment by the management to the workman. The finding of fact by the Labour Court is based on appreciation of facts and also the evidence on record. We do not see any perversity in the WA.1912/2008 4 findings of the Labour Court. 14. In that view of the matter we are of the opinion that the learned single Judge has not committed any error whatsoever while rejecting the writ petition filed by the appellant. 15. After disposal of the appeal Sri.Nandakumar, learned counsel would submit that the management has closed down its business activities and therefore requests us to grant him time to disburse the amount quantified by the learned Single Judge to the workman within a particular time frame, in order to avoid payment with interest. 15. In our opinion, the request of the learned counsel appears to be reasonable and if it is granted it would not cause any prejudice to the workman. Therefore, the management is directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the workman within 45 days from today. If, for any reason, the appellant fails to pay the amount as directed by us, the direction of the learned single Judge regarding interest would revive. Ordered accordingly. H.L. DATTU Chief Justice A.K. BASHEER Judge an/DK.