IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 636 of 2005(A)
1. SECRETARY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. M/S.KALAPURAKAL INDUSTRIES,
... Respondent
2. MR. THANKAPPAN, S/O.AIYAN KUNJU,
3. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA.
For Petitioner :SRI.PAULSON C.VARGHESE
For Respondent :SRI.P.R.JAYAKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :12/06/2008
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.636 OF 2005
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of June, 2008
JUDGMENT
The Union in I.D.No.3 of 1999 before the Industrial
Tribunal, Alappuzha is the petitioner herein, who challenges
Ext.P3 award passed by the Tribunal in that I.D. The issue
referred for adjudication was,
“Whether the retrenchment of 14 workmen (list
annexed) without any reason is justifiably? If not, what
relief they are entitled to get?”
The Tribunal found that these 14 workmen were engaged by the
management through a Contractor, who was later impleaded as
the additional 3rd management. On that finding, the Tribunal
came to the conclusion that the workmen are not entitled to any
reliefs in the I.D.
2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner this
finding of fact is totally perverse. He points out that the 2nd
respondent Sri. Thankappan has not even cared to appear before
W.P.(c)No.636/08 2
the Tribunal and evidence adduced by the management itself
would lead to the conclusion that the said Sri. Thankappan was
also an employee only. He has been described as a Contractor
only for the purpose of denying the benefits legally due to the
employees from the 1st respondent. The learned counsel for
the petitioner therefore would submit that Ext.P3 award is
totally perverse and is liable to be interfered.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
management would contend that he had produced a contract
agreement between the 1st respondent and the said Sri.
Thankappan pursuant to which only the workmen were
employed as contract labourers. He points out that the
Tribunal had discussed the evidence in detail and come to the
conclusion only on the basis of evidence on record that the
workers were actually workers of the Contractor and not of the
1st respondent which is not liable to be interfered with by this
Court. The contention is that this is purely a question of
appreciation of evidence and this Court cannot interfere with
such findings of fact unless it is demonstrably perverse which
is not the case here. He would point out that even assuming
that the finding is wrong that cannot automatically lead to the
W.P.(c)No.636/08 3
conclusion that it is perverse and therefore this Court cannot
interfere with findings of facts in Ext.P3. He further points out
that as held in the award itself, the establishment itself was
closed long back and MW1, one of the parents of the 1st
respondent is now working in a medical store and that he is
now facing proceedings for recovery of the loan amounts by
the bank from whom the establishment had taken loan for
repayment of which more than crore of rupees would have to
be paid for paying which he has no means.
4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. The
learned counsel for the petitioner would draw my attention to
Ext.P4 deposition of the management witness which according
to him would show that the said Sri. Thankappan was not
actually a Contractor at all, but only one of the workers and
the agreement produced as a contract between the 1st
respondent and the said Sri. Thankappan is a sham document
created for the purpose of the case. He points out that the 1st
respondent himself has agreed in Ext.P4 deposition that the
Sri. Thankappan was also being paid salary. But a reading of
the award and Ext.P4 deposition, I cannot come to the
conclusion that the findings in Ext.P3 are perverse. The
W.P.(c)No.636/08 4
findings can also be read as Sri. Thankappan was also being
engaged as a worker in addition to as a Contractor for which
he was being paid salary separately. Apart from that Ext.P4
does not show that the findings that there was a contract
between the management and the said Sri. Thankappan is
perverse as such. It is only another conclusion which may be
possible. When the Tribunal arrives at one conclusion the fact
that on the same evidence another man would have come to a
different conclusion is not a ground for interference with the
awards of Industrial Tribunals and Labour Courts by this Court.
In such circumstances I am unable to find any perversity in the
findings of the Tribunal. In the above circumstances, I am not
inclined to interfere with Ext.P3. Accordingly, the writ petition
is dismissed.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
Acd
W.P.(c)No.636/08 5