V P SHAJI Vs. LABOUR COURT KOLLAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The workman involved in I.D. No.43 of 1996 before the Labour Court, Kollam, is challenging Ext.P1 award passed in that I.D. The issue raised for adjudication is as follows:

(2.) The facts that the petitioner's was an employee of the management and his employment was terminated were not disputed by the management. The only contention raised by the management was that the petitioner was appointed as an Attender- cum-Salesman by the management society in the Maveli Store conducted by the society as authorised by the Kerala Civil Supplies Corporation. Since the Civil Supplies Corporation stopped supply of goods to the Maveli Store, the society was forced to close the Maveli Store. Consequently the employees of the Maveli Store had to be retrenched. On that ground the management justified the retrenchment of the workman. After considering the rival contentions, the Labour Court came to the finding that the Maveli Store was being conducted by the society completely as a separate establishment having no functional integrality with other business of the society and therefore once the Maveli Store is closed, the petitioner is liable to be retrenched from service. The petitioner raised another contention that another worker junior to the petitioner namely, Sri. Joseph Varghese was retained in service. That was answered by the Labour Court holding that the appointment of the petitioner was made permanent only on 1.1.1986, whereas Sri. Joseph Varghese was appointed under the dying-in-harness scheme on 22.2.1985. It was also held that the category of the two persons are different. In view of the said findings, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the termination of service of the petitioner is justifiable and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the ID. That award is under challenge before me.

(3.) The petitioner contends that the findings of the Labour Court are perverse. According to him, the Maveli Store was not a separate establishment having no functional integrality with other business of the society, as held by the Labour Court. He further submits that if that contention was correct then all the workers of the Maveli Store ought to have been retrenched from service and not the petitioner alone. Admittedly, Sri. Joseph Varghese who was also appointed in the Maveli Store itself, after the appointment of the petitioner, should also have to be retrenched, which had not been done and he continues to be retained in service of the society. That being so, according to the petitioner, the conclusion on the two issues raised by the by the Labour Court himself is clearly contradictory and are liable to be set aside.