THE SECRETARY, KERALA ESTATES STAFF versus THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

High Court of Kerala

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

THE SECRETARY, KERALA ESTATES STAFF v. THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - OP No. 25941 of 2002(L) [2007] RD-KL 5260 (12 March 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP No. 25941 of 2002(L)

1. THE SECRETARY, KERALA ESTATES STAFF
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL,
... Respondent

2. M.A.AJITH PRASAD JAIN,

For Petitioner :SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN

For Respondent :SRI.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

Dated :12/03/2007

O R D E R

S. SIRI JAGAN, J.

O.P.NO.25941 OF 2002

DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF MARCH, 2007

JUDGMENT

The Union in I.D.No.44/99 before the Industrial Tribunal, Kozhikode challenges Ext.P1 award passed by the Industrial Tribunal in that I.D. Issue referred for adjudication was this:

"Whether the Denial of Bonus to Sri. P.K. Sreenivasan, Office Staff for the year 1997-98, Maniyankode Estate, Kalpetta North is justifiable or not?"

2. On consideration of the evidence adduced before it, the Tribunal came to the finding that the Union could not conclusively prove that the workman in question was an employee of the estate and therefore his claim for bonus for 1996-97 is not bonafide and genuine. On that ground the Tribunal denied any relief to the workman. So the only question that arise before me that consideration is as to whether the finding of the Industrial Tribunal that the workman in question was not a workman of the estate is correct or not. That question is purely a question of fact. The Tribunal has in Ext.P1 award, discussed the evidence before it in graphic detail and has come  O.P.25941/02 2 to the conclusion that the workman was not a workman employed in the estate. I do not find any perversity whatsoever in such findings. Moreover, the learned counsel for the management points out that pursuant to Ext.W3 proceedings produced by the Union before the tribunal, the Inspector of Plantations, Kalpetta also came to the same conclusion that the workman was not a workman of the management estate. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the original petition and accordingly the same is dismissed.

S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

Acd  O.P.25941/02 3 

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.