IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT :- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2008 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WA.No.2329 of 2008 ---------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.30444/1999 Dated 29/10/2008 .................... APPELLANT/ PETITIONER IN WPC:- ------------------------------------------------- KERALA STATE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD., 2ND FLOOR, CARMEL CENTRE, BANERJEE ROAD, KOCHI - 18 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS IN WPC:- ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.K.SOMAN, PAVATHUSSERY HOUSE, NORTH OF PALLATHURUTH BRIDGE, PALLATHURUTHY, ALAPPUZHA. 2. LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM. R1 BY ADV.SRI.ASP.KURUP SMT.SANDHYA DEVI. R2 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PELADER SMT.K.MEERA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ----------------------------------------------------- W.A.No.2329 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 4th day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. Appellant is the management in an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication before the Labour Court, Kollam. 2. The issue referred was regarding the validity of termination of service of respondent No.1, the workman. The Labour Court, after carefully considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced before it held that the termination was not justified, and, accordingly an award was passed directing the appellant- management to reinstate the workman in service with back wages and other benefits. 3. The above award was challenged by the management before the learned Single Judge, who by the impugned judgment concurred with the finding of the Labour Court on the question of validity of reinstatement. However, the award was modified by the learned Judge to the extent that the management was directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation, in lieu of reinstatement and payment of back wages. The above order passed by the learned Single W.A.No.2329/2008 -2- Judge is impugned in this writ appeal. 4. Sri.M.V.Thamban, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that, the award passed by the Labour Court was per se illegal and arbitrary inasmuch as it was passed without affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the management. 5. We are unable to agree with the above contention. It is on record that the management had filed its counter statement and had in fact even cross examined the workman. The documents produced by the management were marked through the workman in the course of his cross examination. Thereafter the management kept away from the proceedings, and no evidence was adduced on its side. 6. It is significant to note that, the only contention raised by the management in its counter statement before the Labour Court was that, the workman was only a petty contractor who used to supply workers for the purpose of construction of the bridge. The management denied the contention of the workman that he was engaged as a security guard and watchman at the work site on daily wage basis at the rate of Rs.22/- per day. It was also contended that, workman had never worked uninterruptedly and continuously for two years at the project office till 30th September, 1989. W.A.No.2329/2008 -3- 7. The above contention was considered by the Labour Court, in the light of the pleadings and evidence adduced by the workman. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that, the contention of the workman was more probable and acceptable and that his case was sufficiently proved by the oral and documentary evidence adduced by him. In this context, it was also noticed by the Labour Court that, the management never bothered to adduce any evidence on its side. 8. Learned Single Judge, while considering the validity and legality of the impugned award passed by the Labour Court, came to the conclusion that there was no perversity or irregularity in the finding entered by the Labour Court. Though an attempt was made by the management relying on a stray sentence in the cross examination of the workman to contend for the position that the workman never served under the management as a security guard, the learned Judge was not prepared to place any reliance on the said statement made by the workman. As rightly noticed by the learned Judge, a perusal of the entire deposition of the workman which is placed before us as Annexure II(a) along with the writ appeal, we are satisfied that the workman had satisfactorily established his case. We are in full agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the award passed by the W.A.No.2329/2008 -4- Labour Court was eminently justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. We are also in agreement with the view taken by the learned Judge that, since the termination of the workman was way back in the year 1989, and that, he was engaged in connection with the construction of a bridge by the Corporation during that period there is no justification in directing the management to reinstate the workman. It is therefore that the learned Judge has directed the management to pay sum of Rs.50,000/- to the workman in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. We find no illegality in the judgment. The writ appeal fails, and it is therefore liable to be dismissed. 10. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that, the management is prepared to pay the amount of compensation as ordered by the learned Single Judge. He prays that some reasonable time may be granted for payment of the amount. 11. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, though we have not issued notice to the workman and heard him, we are satisfied that, it will not cause any prejudice to them. Therefore, three months' time from today is granted to the management to pay the amount of compensation as directed by the learned Single Judge. W.A.No.2329/2008 -5- Writ Appeal is disposed of as above. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE MS