IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2009 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 33066 of 2008(J) -------------------------- ID.76/2006 of LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- G.PRADEEPKUMAR, MANAGING PARTNER RAJAN JEWELLERY, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM SAMSON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SURESHKUMAR.V.K. KARUNA HOUSE, KUTTOOR PO., KUTTOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.VARGHESE MYLOTH FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 33066/2008 ------------------------------------------------------------------ EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF DISCHARGE CARD OF THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 LEAVE APPLICATION D. 2-1-2006. EXT.P3 SERVICE RECORD OF RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 ATTENDENT REGISTER OF THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 AWARD IN L.D.NO. 76/2006. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 33066 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 27th October, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the management in I.D.No. 76/2006 before the Labour Court, Kollam. He is challenging Ext. P5 award passed by the Labour Court in that I.D. The issue referred for adjudication was: “Whether the denial of employment to Sri. V.K. Sureshkumar, Salesman by the Management of Rajan Jewellery, Thiruvalla is justifiable? If not what relief he is entitled to?” The facts of the case leading to the award is as follows: 2. The workman was employed with the the petitioner- management. According to the workman, he was working with the management from 5-5-1987, whereas the management would contend that the workman joined the establishment only on 19-8-1990. There is also some dispute regarding the wages paid to the workman. The workman absented himself from duty from 13-12-2005 to 1-1-2006. According to workman, when he reported for duty on 2-1-2006 with an application for leave and supporting medical certificate, employment was denied to him, refusing to permit him to join duty. He raised an industrial dispute, which was referred for adjudication before the Labour Court, which resulted in Ext. P5 award. 3. The contention of the management before the Labour Court was that the workman had abandoned employment and therefore there was no termination or denial of employment at all. The Labour Court considered the evidence before it and found that in view of the fact that on account of a burn injury, the workman was hospitalized and he had produced medical certificate to that effect, the contention of the management that the workman had abandoned employment cannot be believed. The Labour Court accepted the contention of the workman and held that denial of employment to the workman from W.P.C. No. 33066/08 -: 2 :- 2-1-2006 was without justification and directed the management to reinstate the workman with continuity of service within one month from the date of pronouncement of the judgment and without backwages, which is under challenge before me. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in the matter. 5. Before going into the questions involved, I must remind myself of my jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India while considering the validity of awards of Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals. It is settled law that this Court cannot interfere with findings of fact entered into by the Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals unless the findings of facts are perverse. The fact that another man may come to a different finding on the same evidence is no ground to interfere. In this case, the only contention raised by the petitioner is that the findings are wrong. According to him, he has proved that the the workman had abandoned employment. The Labour Court had, relying on the medical certificate, found that the workman had sufficient reasons to abstain from duty on account of a burn injury suffered by him and found that there was no intention on the part of the workman to abandon employment. Accordingly, the Labour Court disbelieved the petitioner and accepted the case of the workman. I do not think that such finding is in any way perverse. In fact, from the facts, it is not possible to find that the workman had any intention to abandon employment. Therefore, I do not find anything wrong with Ext. P5 award and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/