IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 5TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 14TH KARTHIKA 1931 WA.No. 2472 of 2009 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.17559/2007 Dated 08/10/2009 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------------- P. RAMESH, S/O. PALAPPAN, PIRANI VILAI HOUSE, PANCODU POST, VILARANCODU TALUK, KANYAKUMARI DIST, TAMILNADU. BY ADV. SRI.SANU.S.PANICKER RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: -------------------------------- ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (PERSONAL), AIR INDIA, UNITY COMPLEX PALLAVARM, CHENNAI-43. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH KODIYANTHARA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R. Bannurmath, C.J. & A.K. Basheer, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No. 2472 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5th day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. Ext.P1 award passed by the Industrial Tribunal was challenged by the appellant-workman before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The learned Single Judge, after a careful re-evaluation of the materials available on record, found that the Tribunal had arrived at right conclusions on the basis of the evidence adduced by the employer and the workman. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused Ext.P1 award carefully. 4. The primary contention raised by the appellant was that he had continuously worked in the establishment for 275 days. But it came out in evidence that the workman had worked only for 107 days and that too intermittently and on a casual basis. The evidence of the witness examined on the WA No.2472 OF 2009 -:2:- side of the workman also did not support the case of the appellant. 5. According to the appellant, he was appointed as Handyman at Trivandrum Airport on a casual basis on May 8, 2002 and continued as such till May 3, 2004 for a total number of 275 days. But the management contended that he worked from February 8, 2002 till May 2003 for 107 days only. The workman could not produce any document to substantiate his contention. Ext.W3, photocopy of a cheque, only revealed that he had received remuneration for a certain period prior to May 2003. In short, the workman totally failed to establish that he worked at the Airport continuously for a period of 275 days as contended by him. Thus the reference was answered by the Tribunal against the Workman. 6. The finding entered by the Tribunal being one based on evidence adduced by the parties, which exclusively falls in the realm of questions of fact, we do not find any reason to upset the said finding entered by the Tribunal and as confirmed by the learned Single Judge, especially since no material has been WA No.2472 OF 2009 -:3:- brought to our notice to show that the finding entered by the Tribunal is vitiated by any factor known to law. Therefore, while confirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge, we dismiss the appeal, since it is totally devoid of merit. S.R. Bannurmath, Chief Justice. A.K. Basheer, Judge. ttb