C I PANKAJAKSHAN Vs. K V KURIAKOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 1st respondent who was a worker in a toddy shop raised an industrial dispute alleging denial of employment in the toddy shop during the period from 13.12.1997 to 31.3.1999. That dispute was referred for adjudication to the 2nd respondent-Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad. By Ext.P1 award, the 2nd respondent directed the then licensee, one Sri. C.V. Philipose, to pay to the 1st respondent backwages amounting to Rs.15,000/-. But in that award, there was an observation that for subsequent years the workman is free to approach the subsequent contractors since they were not in the party array. After the workman attained the age of superannuation in 1999, he raised another industrial dispute claiming appropriate reliefs for the period 1999- 2000. During 2000-01 the licensee was a Workers' Co-operative Society and the 1st respondent did not choose to become a member of the Society by paying the share contribution and admission fee. Subsequently the petitioners became the licensees of the toddy shop. The 1st respondent raised an industrial dispute for reinstatement in service. That was referred for adjudication to the

(2.) ND respondent. The petitioners were not originally parties to the industrial dispute or in the order of reference. But the petitioners were impleaded as additional management. By that time, the petitioners ceased to be the licensees and notices were not served on them. It appears that notices issued to the petitioners were also returned unserved and paper publications made. Subsequently, Ext.P2 award was passed in favour of the workman, in which the petitioners were also made liable. The petitioners were unaware of the industrial dispute and the award. Subsequently the 1st respondent filed C.P.No.9/2009 before the

(3.) IN the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of opinion that it is only just and proper that the petitioners be given an opportunity to contest the matter on merits. For that purpose, Ext.P2 award is quashed. The Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad is directed to re-adjudicate the dispute, after affording both parties a fresh opportunity to contest the matter on merits by adducing evidence, if any.