Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 457 (KER)

Mammen Varghese v. Ramesh G. Parrat

2016-06-01

K.VINOD CHANDRAN

body2016
JUDGMENT : The petitioner, first management in the dispute, has challenged Ext.P5 award. The respondent workman claims to have been working in the petitioner's shop and contended that he was denied employment without any reasonable cause. The employee, in fact, had a contention that he was employed in the petitioner's shop which was a branch of a concern with Head Office at Chennai. The said management was also impleaded, but, however, the Labour Court has found that the petitioner is the management who had employed the respondent workman. In such circumstances the contention whether the workman was employed in the branch of M/s. Mindstorm Computer Information (P) Ltd., need not at all be looked into. 2. The respondent workman claims to have been employed from 11.09.1993 to 19.12.1994. The workman contended that he had claimed minimum wages and had also initiated proceedings before appropriate forum, upon which the management had terminated him from service. The workman examined himself and marked five documents. The first management examined themselves and marked three documents. The proceedings initiated by the workman for getting minimum wages was also produced as Ext.P1. 3. The Labour Court had placed reliance on Ext.W3 certificate issued by the management dated 12.07.1994. This Court has examined the said certificate, which certificate is one issued certifying the employment of the workman between 11.09.1993 and 19.12.1994. The contention of the management is that this belies the specific contention made by the petitioner that he was first appointed on 11.09.1993. The certificate indicates experience from 11.07.1993 and the same is not in consonance with the claim statement, argues counsel. However, the management admitted the issuance of Ext.W3 certificate allegedly for reason that the workman had made a request for issuance of a certificate to seek employment in the gulf countries. 4. Be that as it may, Ext.W3 certificate having been admitted, it cannot be said that the workman was not employed by the management. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the Labour Court that workman was employed by the petitioner and that he was denied employment. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, would contend that, as of now, the shop is almost wound up. It is trite that even if the denial of employment is found, it need not necessarily lead to an order of reinstatement. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, would contend that, as of now, the shop is almost wound up. It is trite that even if the denial of employment is found, it need not necessarily lead to an order of reinstatement. The workman was employed for only about an year and had admittedly been sent out from service on 19.12.1994. It is also to be noticed that there is some doubt cast on the question of employment, since the date of appointment asserted by the petitioner in his claim statement was a date subsequent to the date shown in the certificate produced by the workman himself. 6. Taking all the above circumstances into consideration this Court is of the opinion that the operative portion of the award can be modified. Compensation can be given to the petitioner considering the minimum period of service the petitioner has and also the direction made to pay 25% backwages, and also the fact that the writ petition was pending for a long period without the workman being reinstated. This Court is of the opinion that a compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) would suffice. The petitioner management is directed to pay the above said compensation within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of modifying the award, setting aside the reinstatement ordered and backwages granted and ordering compensation as above.