KENCHAPPA N. S/O LATE NANJAPPA, SOMANNA S/O LATE CHELUVA SHETTY Vs. GOKULAM CHITRA MANDIRA KRS MAIN ROAD, GOKULUM EXTENSION MYSORE. REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS claiming to be workmen under the respondent -Cinema Theater having raised conciliation proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the State Government referred the industrial dispute, for adjudication, to the labour Court, Mysore, registered as Reference Nos. 16/1999; 73/1999 and 55/1998, respectively. Aggrieved by the common award of even date 11.2.2009; rejecting the references, have preferred these petitions.

(2.) THE only contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the report Annexure -B dated 14.10.1996 of the Senior Labour Officer observing that the petitioners were employees and paid monthly wages in an inspection of the respondent -Cinema Talkies, was unavailable to the petitioners at the time when the dispute was adjudicated and that it was made available, after the award was passed, hence the workmen be extended an opportunity to place that relevant material before the labour Court to establish the jural relationship of employee and employer between the parties.

(3.) KEEPING in mind the fact that petitioners claiming to be workmen discharging duties as Booking Clerk, Torch Boy and Clerk -cum -Supervisor unable to lay their hands on the report Annexure -B of the Senior Labour Officer, prepared pursuant to the inspection during the year 1996 indicating that they are employees of the respondent -Cinema Talkies, at the time of adjudication of the dispute before the labour Court, in my opinion, ends of justice would be met by quashing the award and remitting the proceeding for an enquiry by permitting the petitioner to introduce in evidence Annexure -B, in accordance with law. Whether the document is admissible or inadmissible and its relevancy, are to be considered by the Labour Court after a trial.