IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2010 / 1ST SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 21221 of 2010(C) ---------------------------------------- ID.6/2004 of INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ ASHIQ, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.LATE T.SUBAIR, RESIDING AT 17/222, "GLAMOUROOMS", S.K.TEMPLE ROAD, CALICUT-1. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. T. SHIRIN, GLAMOUROOMS, BANK ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 001. 2. K. SIRAJUDEEN, S/O.HAMSA, THECHAMPADY KANDI HOUSE, MAKKADA P.O., KAKKODY, KOZHIKODE, NOW RESIDING AT NIRANILA VAYAL, JAYANTI ROAD, NALLALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 027. 3. THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, OFFICE OF DLO, KOZHIKODE. R3 & R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.21221 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P2 award of the Industrial Tribunal, Kozhikode in I.D.No.6 of 2004. According to the petitioner, he is a partner of an unregistered partnership firm by name 'Glamour Rooms'. He is aggrieved by Ext.P2 award for the reason that an award has been passed reinstating the workman in service with 50% backwages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits. Only the Managing Partner was a party before the Industrial Tribunal. However, the petitioner is also made liable for the financial implications arising out of the award. 2. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the partnership firm being an unregistered one, all the partners should have been made parties before the Industrial Tribunal. Having not been made a party to the said proceedings, it is contended that the petitioner cannot be made liable for the financial commitments that arise from the order of the Industrial Tribunal. 2. Ext.P2 award is dated 23.9.2004. A reading of the wpc No.21221/2010 2 award shows that the same was contested by the management by letting in evidence and by examining the manager of the firm as a witness. After considering the evidence adduced, the Industrial Tribunal is seen to have ordered reinstatement of the workman in the year 2004. Therefore, on behalf of the firm, the Managing Partner had contested the proceedings. It was only thereafter that the award has been passed. About six years have elapsed since the passing of the award. The award has become final. At this length of time, there is absolutely no justification for permitting the petitioner to reopen the matter by challenging the same. The petitioner's interests were substantially represented by the Managing Partner who was duly authorised to do so as per law. The petitioner has also lost whatever right that he may have had to challenge the award by the long lapse of time. In the above circumstances, this writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/