Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 92 (KER)

The Telecom District Manager v. Labour Court

2004-03-04

R.RAJENDRA BABU

body2004
Judgment :- The Telecom District Manager, Kozhikode filed this Original Petition for quashing Ext.P1 award passed by the Labour Court, Kozhikode in I.D.(c) No. 7/95. A.P. Balan, the respondent herein was employed as casual Mazdoor under the petitioner from 1978 and his service was regularised by an order dated, 8-7-1980. He worked till December 1986 and thereafter he discontinued. The workman contended that he was reengaged in service from 6-8-1990 and work was denied to him from 15-2-1994. Accordingly he raised an industrial dispute and the same was referred to the Labour Court, Kozhikode, for adjudication. The Labour Court after considering the evidence let in by both sides passed Ext.P1 award holding that the denial of employment to the workman by the management was not justifiable and directed the management to reinstate the workman as an approved casual Mazdoor within one month from the date of publication of the award in the Official Gazette and that the workman was entitled to all benefits and privileges and continuity of service as a casual labourer but without backwages. The above award of the Labour Court is under challenge at the instance of the management. 2. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent. 3. One of the contentions put forward by the petitioner was that the Telecom Department was not an industry coming within the definition of Sec. 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act and as such the reference made by the Government for adjudication before the Labour Court was invalid. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Telecom Department is an industry coming within the definition of Sec. 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Dharti Pakar Madan Lal Agarwal v. K.R. Narayanan and others – AIR 1997 SCC 767. The supreme Court placing reliance on the decision of the Bangalore Water Supply Case (AIR 1978 SC 548) held that the Telecom was an industry coming within the definition of the Industrial Disputes Act. In para 6 of the judgment it was held that. The supreme Court placing reliance on the decision of the Bangalore Water Supply Case (AIR 1978 SC 548) held that the Telecom was an industry coming within the definition of the Industrial Disputes Act. In para 6 of the judgment it was held that. “It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant that according to this test the Telecommunication Department of the Union of India is an “industry” within that definition because it is engaged in a commercial activity and the Department is not engaged in discharging any of the sovereign functions of the State”. Again the Supreme Court in Asha Ram v. Divisional Engineer, Telecom Department and others (2001) 9 SCC 382, held that the Telecom Department is an industry coming within the definition of S.2(J) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In view of the above decisions of the Supreme Court, the contention put forward by the Telecom Department that it is not an industry coming within the ambit of Sec 2(j) of the I.D. Act cannot be accepted. 4. Another contention put forward by the petitioner was that the workman had worked with the Telecom Department only will 1986 and thereafter he abandoned the job and as such he was not entitled to any benefit. Admittedly, respondent was a casual Mazdoor in the Telecom Department from October 1978 onwards and he was working till December 1986. From 1986 to 1990, the respondent, according to him could not attend any work so he was laid up due to his physical ailments. According to him he was reengaged in service from 6.10.1990 onwards and employment was denied to him from 15-2-1994 onwards. The definite case put forward by the employee was that he was working under Sri. Lohithakashan and Sri. Krishnadas, the two Sub Inspectors of Telephones and the production of the imprest bills and vouchers maintained by those Inspectors would disclose his employment under these two officers. A petition also was filed by him to direct the management to produce the above documents. But the management did not produce the documents. Further in the conciliation proceedings before the Asst. Labour Commissioner, the Department filed a statement wherein it was stated that on verification of the vouchers pertaining to the period 2-5-1991 to 31-12-1991, it was found that the respondent was engaged on imprest bills of Sri. Lohithakshan for 25 days. But the management did not produce the documents. Further in the conciliation proceedings before the Asst. Labour Commissioner, the Department filed a statement wherein it was stated that on verification of the vouchers pertaining to the period 2-5-1991 to 31-12-1991, it was found that the respondent was engaged on imprest bills of Sri. Lohithakshan for 25 days. Thus the documents revealed that in1990 the respondent had worked in the Telecom Department. 5. Placing reliance on Exts. P2 and P3 documents the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent was working with Standard Furniture, Calicut from 1986 till 7-1-1994. For substantiating the contention and for proving Exts. P2 & P3, Manager of Standard Furniture was examined as MW2. The Labour Court elaborately considered the evidence let in by MW2 and Exts. P2 & P3 and found that Exts.P2 and P3 cannot be relied on. The oral evidence let in by MW2 would reveal that the Standard Furniture had been closed down from 1990 to 1993 as the company was on lock out. Hence the recital in Ext.P2 that the respondent had worked till 1994 cannot be accepted. Ext. P3 also would indicate that after 28-6-1990, the respondent was not working with Standard Furniture. The respondent might have been working with the Standard Industries Prior to 1990. The evidence let in by both sides had been considered by the labour Court elaborately and carefully and found that the workmen had been engaged by the Telecom Department in 1990 and work was denied to him in 1994 as alleged. It is a finding based on facts. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court cannot interfere with such finding on facts unless those findings are perverse and not based on any evidence and would cause manifest injustice. Reliance was placed on the decision of the SC in Esson Deinki V. Raji kumar 2002 (8) SCC 400. There the Supreme Court held that the finding on fact of the Tribunal could not be interfered unless the finding was perverse, or not based on materials or cause manefest injustice and the Court should have a broad outlook in the matter. The finding of the Labour Court is based on reliable evidence and I do not think that the above finding is perverse or it would cause any manifest injustice. The finding of the Labour Court is based on reliable evidence and I do not think that the above finding is perverse or it would cause any manifest injustice. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere with the finding of the Labour Court. 6. The Labour Court directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent as a casual Mazdoor. It was further held that the workman was not entitled to backwages but he was entitled to other service benefits as a casual Mazdoor. The Labour Court is fully justified in issuing the above directions also. Hence this OP has only to be dismissed. In the result, this OP is dismissed. The petitioner shall comply with the award of the Labour Court forthwith.