IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 26844 of 2008(U)
1. PUNNAPRA NORTH S.N.D.P. BRANCH NO.609,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. AJITHA DEVI.P., CHIRAYIL, PUNNAPRA
... Respondent
2. THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA.
For Petitioner :SRI.N.ASHOK KUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :04/09/2008
O R D E R
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