(1.) By the impugned award (Ext. P3) dated 17-6-1978 the 4th respondent Tribunal found that the two workers represented by the 1st respondent Union were denied employment by the petitioner contrary to the provisions of the Kerala Agricultural workers Act, 1974 (Act 18 of 1974). Witnesses were examined on both sides. Documents also were produced on both sides. The Tribunal on a consideration of the entire evidence came to the conclusion that the workers in question had been employed by the petitioner in the previous season in the land belonging to him and that he was therefore in law liable to offer them employment in preference to others. The Tribunal placed much reliance upon the register maintained by the Panchayat showing that the workers in question had been employed by the Petitioner for a considerable period of time. This register has been maintained by the Panchayat in Form 7 in terms of R.20 of the Kerala Agricultural Workers Rules, 1975. As against this register, the petitioner produced the register maintained by him purportedly in Form 8 in terms of R.23 of the Kerala Agricultural Workers Rules. But that register was not accepted as reliable evidence for the reason that admittedly it has been maintained only since the dispute commenced. Thus the Tribunal on a proper appreciation of evidence came to the conclusion which is now under challenge. This is a finding of fact with which this Court does not ordinarily interfere.
(2.) However, Shri Nandakumara Menon appearing for the petitioner submits that there are serious infirmities in the award. In the first place he points out that the petitioner is not an employer within the Act, for, as evidenced by the levy notice, which was produced before the Tribunal as Ext. B2, he owns land below the limit mentioned under S.42. According to Counsel the Tribunal ought to have found that the petitioner did not own more than one hectare in extent of land. In answer to this contention, the 1st respondent's counsel Shri Jayakumar rightly points out that the petitioner had admitted in his written statement that be was in possession of 2 acres 90 cents which is more than 1 hectare. If that is the position it is not possible to hold that the petitioner is exempted from the provisions of the Act. Perhaps as pointed out by Shri Nandakumara Menon the petitioner made a mistake in stating that he was in possession of 2 acres 90 cents and his total holding is only as shown in the levy notice (Ext. B2). If that were the real position one would have expected the petitioner to have sought permission of the Tribunal to correct the written statement. No such attempt was made. There is no whisper in his evidence before the Tribunal that the extent of" land stated by him in the written statement was a mistake. All that he stated in his evidence was that he owned 2 and odd acres of land. His evidence on the point is meagre and vague. It cannot contradict his own plea. In the circumstances there is no merit in the contention that the petitioner is exempted from the provisions of the Act.
(3.) The more formidable contention of Shri Nandakumara Menon is that the award is vitiated by long delay. The reference to the Tribunal was made by the District Collector in terms of S.22(4) as early as 27-7-1976. The order of reference was received by the Tribunal on 31-7-1976. There is no mention in the award of the long delay in making it, although the petitioner had filed on 15-10-1977, what is styled as an additional written statement with a prayer to drop the proceedings on the ground that the period of one month mentioned under S.22(4) had long expired and the Tribunal was no longer competent. Although this additional written statement was styled as such, it was in effect a petition to drop the proceedings and it should have been disposed of by a specific order. There is no reference at all to this in the award. The award was made on 17-6-1978 which was almost two years since the date of reference. Nevertheless the Tribunal did not refer to the reason for the delay. On the face of it the award is contrary to the letter and spirit of S.22(4) which reads as follows: