IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 13TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 26844 of 2008(U) -------------------------- ID.43/2002 of INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER: ------------ PUNNAPRA NORTH S.N.D.P. BRANCH NO.609, PUNNAPRA P.O. ALAPPUZHA REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT. BY ADV. SRI.N.ASHOK KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. AJITHA DEVI.P., CHIRAYIL, PUNNAPRA NORTH, PUNNAPRA P.O., ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA. BY GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.26844 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 4th day of September, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging Ext.P3 award of the Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam in I.D. No.43/2002. 2. The issue referred for adjudication was: “Whether denial of employment to smt.P.Ajithadevi, Clerk, S.N.D.P.Branch No.699, Punnapra P.O., is legal and justifiable? If not what benefit, she is entitled to?” 3. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner took the contention that the workman was not a “workman” as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act and that the workman was only a temporary clerk whose services were dispensed with when the services of a clerk were not necessary in the establishment. The Tribunal, on evidence, found that the workman was actually employed by the petitioner management as a clerk and she had more than a year of continuous service and therefore, the workman is clearly a “workman” as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act. The Tribunal relied on the appointment order issued by the management and averments of the petitioner themselves w.p.c.26844/08 2 in their counter statement, for arriving at the conclusion. The Tribunal, further came to the conclusion that the management unjustly denied employment to the workman without following the procedure prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act, for retrenchment. However, instead of ordering reinstatement with backwages, the Tribunal only awarded an amount of Rs.21,600/- as compensation in lieu of reinstatement. That award is under challenge in this writ petition. 4. In addition to the contentions raised in the industrial dispute, the petitioner now contends that the petitioner is not an “industry” as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act. I cannot consider that contention for two reasons. First is that in Ext.P2 counter statement filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal, the petitioner had not taken such a contention at all. Further from the evidence before the Tribunal as discussed in the award, it is clear that the petitioner is actually running a tailoring institute in their establishment. The workman was employed as a Clerk in that establishment. Going by the tests prescribed by the Supreme Court in the decision in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A.Rajappa & others (AIR 1978 SC 548), w.p.c.26844/08 3 clearly the petitioner's establishment would come within the purview of “industry”. I also do not find any perversity in the findings of the Tribunal on the evidence, without which I cannot interfere with the award. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge