IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2008 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 22000 of 2004(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ GEORGE ALFRED, CHAKKALAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, PEOPLES ROAD, VADUTHALA, KOCHI-23. BY ADV. SRI.PAULSON C.VARGHESE SRI.C.ARUN PRASANTH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE MANAGER, M/S. P.C.VARGHESE & COMPANY,PUNNACHALLIL ESTATE, KADAVANTHRA, COCHIN-20. BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM FOR R2 SRI.BOBAN VARGHEESE FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON30-5-2008. THE COURT ON 30/05/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.C.NO.22000 OF 2004 APPENDIX EXHIBITS P1-TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN ID NO.130/00.DT.28/5/2001. P2-TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DT.11.1.2002. P3-TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT IN ID NO.130/2000 DT.17/3/2004. P4-TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 29/4/2004 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. P5-TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF DOCUMENTS DATED 29.4.2004 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 22000 of 2004 ================== Dated this the 30th day of May, 2008 J U D G M E N T Ext.P3 award in I.D.No.130/2000 before the Industrial Tribunal, Alappuzha, is under challenge in this writ petition at the instance of the workman in that industrial dispute. The issue referred for adjudication was denial of employment to the workman from January, 2000 onwards and whether he was entitled to reinstatement in service on the same terms and conditions as a driver under the management. The issue was finalised answering as follows: “8. In view of the fact that there is no material evidence before this Tribunal to come to a proper conclusion one way or other, this Tribunal is totally helpless in pausing (sic - passing) an award in the manner as requested by the workman. Therefore, the issue is left opened for enabling the workman to agitate the issue once again if it is possible for him to produce sufficient materials to vindicate his stand.” Whether evidence is sufficient or not, when an issue is referred for adjudication, a Tribunal or the Labour Court has a duty to pass an award either way on the basis of the evidence on record. The Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court cannot refuse to adjudicate the issue on the ground that there is no sufficient 2 evidence before it. If the evidence is not sufficient to prove the case of the union, the Tribunal has to hold that the workman involved is not entitled to any relief. As such, I am satisfied that Ext.P3 award suffers from material irregularity. Accordingly, Ext.P3 award is quashed and the matter is remanded to the Industrial Tribunal, Alappuzha, for fresh consideration in accordance with law, after affording a further opportunity to the workman involved as well as the management to adduce evidence. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge