VELLANIKKARA AND THATTIL RUBBER ESTATES Vs. ITS WORKMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this proceeding under Article 226, Sri K. P. Abraham, learned Counsel for the petitioner, attacks the award, Ex. P. 1, passed by the industrial tribunal, Ernakulam, in Industrial Dispute No. 43 of 1958 and published in the State Gazette on 1 March 1960.

(2.) THE relief that has been granted to the workman concerned by virtue of this award is not reinstatement as such but an alternative relief directing the management in this case to pay compensation alone and that amount has also been stated in the award of the industrial tribunal.

(3.) ACCORDING to Sri K. P. Abraham, learned Counsel for the petitioner, even on the findings arrived at by the industrial tribunal, it cannot be stated that there is an industrial dispute coming within the ambit of the Industrial Disputes Act on which an award can be passed by the industrial tribunal. Sri Abraham also contended that the tribunal has categorically found that the workman concerned is not in the establishment of the Vellanlkkara and Thattil Estate, which is the management concerned in this case, and having found in favour of the management and against the workman on this particular point, the only basis on which the tribunal has assumed jurisdiction in this case to pass an award is its further finding that the driver is a workman employed under the proprietor of the estate and it is an industrial dispute coming under the Industrial Disputes Act and I have got jurisdiction to adjudicate upon it.