SRI. VIVEKANANDA EDUCATION TRUST Vs. SMT. KAVERAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These intra-Court appeals against the similar orders dated 10.04.2017 are reportedly time barred by a period of 27 days. But having regard to the circumstances of the cases, we have examined the appeals on merit.

(2.) The appellant filed the writ petitions, being W.P.No.56443/2016 and W.P.No.56444/2016, calling in question the two awards dated 09.10.2015 made by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri, [holding concurrent charge of the Labour Court, Kodagu, Madikeri] in two separate disputes in IDA No.3/2014 and IDA No.2/2014 under Section 10-4(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act; and these writ petitions were dismissed by the impugned two orders dated 10.04.2017 by the learned Single Judge refraining to interfere with these awards that declared that the refusal of work to the respective respondents in these appeals tantamount to retrenchment and unfair labour practice with the direction to the appellant to reinstate these respondents as peons and to pay each of them 50% of backwages with continuity of service and other consequential benefits as permissible in law with the further mandate that the appellant shall comply with such direction within 30 days from the date of the award becoming enforceable. The writ petitions were dismissed, inter alia, for the reason that while the respondents had produced material to establish that they were in employment with the appellant, but the appellant, who contended that the respondents were only part-time employees, had failed to place any cogent material or documentary evidence to discharge such burden. It is also held that the impugned awards were backed by sound reasoning and based on material on record, and that the appellant was not able to point out any perversity in the awards.

(3.) The learned counsel, on the merits, has contended that the documents, which are marked in evidence and relied upon by the respondents, could not have been accepted as proof of the respondents being in permanent employment with the appellant, and such documents, at the best, can only establish that respondents were in employment with the appellant and these documents do not dispel the appellant's case that their employment with the appellant was temporary in nature. The learned counsel has also submitted that a set of documents are filed in the present appeals seeking leave of this Court to produce additional documents, which would demonstrate that the respondent had, in fact, voluntarily quit the employment with the appellant owing to illness and requested the appellant to engage the services of any other employees.