IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2008 / 31ST ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 25502 of 2005(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ C.T.MATHEW, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S.C.K.THAVU AND COMPANY, TYRE SHOP, PATTAMBI ROAD, KUNNAMKULAM 680 503. BY ADV. SRI.A.K.CHINNAN SMT.SUSAL A. CHINNAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. C.C.JOHNSON, CHOWALLOOR HOUSE, PELAKKATTU PAYYOOR, KUNAMKULAM 680 517. 2. THE SECRETARY, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD 678 001. BY ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR FOR R1 SRI.MANU GOVIND FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 25502 of 2005 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 22nd July, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the management in I.D. No. 56/2003 before the Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad. He is challenging Ext. P9 award passed by the Tribunal in that I.D. The issue referred for adjudication was: “Whether the denial of employment to Shri. C.C. Johnson by the management of C.K. Thavu & Company, Kunnamkulam is justifiable? If not what relief he is entitled to get?” The Tribunal, after evaluating the evidence on both sides, came to the conclusion that the 1st respondent-workman was denied employment on 1-4-2002 onwards and directed reinstatement with 50% backwages for the period from 1-4-2002 to the date of reinstatement. The petitioner was also directed to pay wages to the workman during the period 1-9-2001 to 31-3-2002. The petitioner would contend that the Tribunal travelled beyond the scope of reference in directing payment of wages for the period from 1-9-2001 to 31-3-2002. The contention of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent had abandoned his employment by absenting himself from 1-9-2001 onwards and therefore there is no question of denial of employment at all. He also specifically refers to his contention that the workman did not claim wages from 1-10-2001 although the same was offered to the 1st respondent. He would submit that Ext. P9 award is totally against the evidence in the case and therefore the findings are perverse and unsustainable. 2. I have considered the contentions of the petitioner. 3. The contention of the petitioner in the written statement was that the 1st respondent absented himself from duty from 1-9-2001 in support of a strike of the workers of a sister concern and thereafter he did not report for duty. The Tribunal found that this contention in the written statement is inconsistent with the letter issued by the petitioner himself. The Tribunal found that in Ext. W2/M2 letter, the W.P.C. No. 25502/2005. -: 2 :- petitioner himself stated that the 1st respondent was absent for seven days in September, 14 days in October and 18 days in November, 2001. The Tribunal further noted that in that letter, there is no mention about the 1st respondent's participation in any strike. The Tribunal found that there is no evidence to show that the 1st respondent absented from duty from September, 2001 onwards continuously in support of the strike resorted to by the workers of the Petrol Pump. The Tribunal also noted that the contention of the management was an after-thought when the workman preferred M1 complaint before the Assistant Labour Officer. The Tribunal further noted that it was only after the workman filed W1 complaint that the petitioner filed a police complaint Ext. M8. The Tribunal also found that the allegations in Ext. W2/M2 letter dated 22-12-2001 amounted to misconduct and the same was in the form of a show cause notice. The workman had submitted Ext. W3/M6 reply dated 27-12-2001 denying the allegations contained thereon. But the management did not find it necessary to initiate any disciplinary proceedings against the 1st respondent. Taking into account all these circumstances, the Tribunal came to the finding that there was denial of employment with effect from 1-4-2002. 4. I get jurisdiction to interfere with such awards only if the findings of fact entered therein are perverse. On a reading of the award, I do not find anything perverse in the findings therein. On the other hand, I find that the Tribunal has given very cogent reasons for arriving at the conclusion therein. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in Ext. P9 award. However, I find that the contention of the petitioner that by directing payment of backwages for the period from 1-9-2001 to 31-3-2002, the Tribunal has travelled beyond the scope of reference is well founded. For deciding that question, I do not think it W.P.C. No. 25502/2005. -: 3 :- necessary to issue notice to the 1st respondent at this point of time in so far as the petitioner was at fault. It would be unjust to drag the poor workman who has been denied employment for long unjustly for another protracted litigation which the workman call ill-afford. In any event, the petitioner has no case that, the said wages were paid also. Therefore, I uphold Ext. P9 award and dismiss the writ petition. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/