IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 15TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 2730 of 2008(Y) ------------------------- ID.27/2006 of INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, IDUKKI .................... PETITIONER: --------------- RUBBER WOOD INDIA (PVT) LTD & INDIA WOOD REGISTERED OFFICE,I.P.C. PHILADALPHIA BUILDINGS K.K.ROAD, KANJIKUZHI, KOTAYAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM SRI.DIPU.R SMT.MERCIAMMA MATHEW RESPONDENTS: ------------------- 1. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, IDUKKI. 2. MARIAMMA M.M.,KOTTOR VADAKKETHIL HOUSE PAMPADY P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. A.J. VARGHESE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.2730 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the management in I.D.No.27/06 before the Industrial Tribunal, Idukki. The issue referred for adjudication was, “Whether the discharge from service of Smt.Mariamma. M.M. Worker by the employer of Rubber Wood India (Pvt) Ltd. and India Wood is jusitifiable or not? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?” 2. The Industrial Tribunal found that the workman was continuously employed for a period of 4 years and she was discharged from service without assigning any reasons and directed the petitioner management to reinstate the workman with backwages, continuity of service and other benefits. The petitioner is challenging that award which is Ext.P1 herein. 3. The contention now raised before me by the petitioner is that the petitioner's specific contention before the Industrial W.P.(c) No.2730/2008 2 Tribunal was that the appointment of the workman squarely falls within the exempted category under Sub Clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) which contention has not been adverted to by the Tribunal at all. They would contend that although the workman was not specifically appointed for a specified period, she was appointed for a specified work, on completion of which only the workman was discharged from service which would fall within the exemption. 4. I have considered the contentions of the petitioner. The petitioner has not even cared to produce the appointment order of the workman either before the Tribunal or before this Court without which the petitioner cannot prove the nature of appointment of the workman. The witness of the petitioner himself while giving evidence specifically admitted before the Tribunal that the fact that the workman continued to be employed on the wages initially given to her without any increase itself would show her incompetency in the work, which would go long way to disprove the contention of the petitioner. It was also admitted that others so appointed were absorbed in service. Apparently going by that admission, it is clear that the petitioner discharged the workman allegedly for W.P.(c) No.2730/2008 3 incompetency which would not qualify for exemption under Sub Clause (bb) of Section 2(oo). In the above circumstances I do not find any infirmity in Ext.P1 award which is under challenge before me. Consequently the writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c) No.2730/2008 4