IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 21501 of 2009(G)
1. THE POLICE STAFF CO-OPERATIVE
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL,
... Respondent
2. SUNIL KUMAR,
3. DEEPA S.NAIR,
For Petitioner :SRI.BABU S. NAIR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :26/10/2009
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
==================
W.P(C).No.21501 of 2009
==================
Dated this the 26th day of October, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The management in I.D.No.27/2009 before the Industrial
Tribunal, Kollam, is the petitioner herein. The petitioner is the
President of a co-operative society. He is challenging Ext.P4 award
passed by the Tribunal in that I.D.
2. The issue referred for adjudication was:
“Whether the following nine employees are eligible for
reinstatement in service.
(1) T.Rajendrakumar, Santhinilayam,
Maruthenkuzhy, Thiruvananthapuram.
(2) P.K.Shajan, Raheela Manzhil, Kumarapuram,
Thiruvananthapuram.
(3) S.Mohandas, T.C.10/556, Peroorkada P.O.,
Thiruvananthapuram.
(4) Mohanakumar, Thazhathuvila Veedu,
Chengal, Thiruvananthapuram.
(5) S.Pradeepan, Plavila Veedu, Venniyoor,
Thiruvananthapuram.
(6) Sunilkumar, Sunil Nivas, Goureesapattom,
Thiruvananthapuram.
(7) Radhikakumari, Ponnu Nivas, Mettukada,
Thiruvananthapuram.
(8) Sreekala, K.P.No.8/38, Kudappanakkunnu,
Thiruvananthapuram.
(9) Deepa.S.Nair, Sukumara Bhavan, Pottayil,
Thiruvananthapuram.”
2
3. Out of the nine employees involved, only two employees
actively participated in the dispute. Therefore, the Tribunal considered
their case only in the dispute. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that
those two employees were illegally terminated from service. On that
finding, the Tribunal, by the impugned award, directed the petitioner-
management to reinstate the two workers with continuity of service
within three months from the notification of the award without
backwages. That award is under challenge in this writ petition.
4. The petitioner raises three contentions. The first is that the
employees were not regularly appointed and, therefore, they have no
right to be reinstated in service. The second is that as is evidenced by
Exts.M1 and W1 marked in the Industrial Dispute, the workers were
engaged as temporary workers and by the award, the workers have
been directed to be regualarised in service, which is patently illegal.
The third is that the workers have not sufficiently proved that they
have completed 240 days in an year so as to become entitled to the
benefits under the Industrial Disputes Act.
5. I have considered the contentions of the petitioner.
6. Regarding the first contention of the management, the
management witnesses themselves admitted before the Tribunal that
the appointments were made from among the names forwarded by the
State Co-operative Union, which is the mode prescribed by the
3
Government for filling up temporary vacancies. Therefore, the
petitioner cannot be heard to contend that the workers were not
appointed legally. Regarding the second contention to the effect that
temporary employees are not entitled to the benefits of the Industrial
Disputes Act, the benefits of the Industrial Disputes Act are applicale to
‘workmen’ as defined under the Act whether temporary or on daily
wages or permanent. That being so, because the workers are
temporary workers, they cannot be denied the benefits of the
Industrial Disputes Act provided the conditions in the Act are satisfied.
Further, the management witnesses themselves admitted before the
Tribunal that the workers were doing the day to day work of the
society and since the permanent workers are not sufficient, at least 4
more employees are necessary to do the day to day work of the
society. That being so, I am not inclined to countenance the contention
of the petitioner that the work done by the workmen in question is
temporary in nature. Regarding the last contention, the workmen have
gone to the box and deposed that they have completed 240 days work
in an year. They had sought production of the records kept by the
society for five years to further prove their contention. However, the
management produced records only for two months viz., May, 1998
and June 1998 instead of five years, for which the reason given by the
management is that remaining books are with the Vigilance
4
Department in connection with the case of WW2. The very same
witness admitted before the Tribunal in the cross examination that in
respect of the two workers involved, there were absolutely no
allegations whatsoever. It is also admitted that the society has no
complaints against them. Apart from that, the question as to whether
the workers completed 240 days in an year is a question of fact, which
has been decided in favour of the workmen by the Tribunal. This Court
cannot overturn that finding unless the same is perverse. I do not find
anything perverse in the finding of the Tribunal. Lastly, the petitioner
would contend that the Tribunal has directed regularisation of the
services of the two workmen, which is not permissible in law. I do not
find even the word “regularisation” in the award. What has been stated
in the award is as follows:
“In the result I hold that Sri.Sunil Kumar and Smt.Deepa.S.Nair
are entitled to reinstatement in the establishment of management with
continuity of service. I am directing the management to reinstate the
above workers with continuity of service with (sic) 3 months from the
date of notification of this award.”
Therefore, I do not find any merit in that contention also.
In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the
contentions of the petitioner and accordingly, the writ petition is
dismissed.
Sd/-
sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
///True copy///
P.A. to Judge
5