OUSEPH JOSEPH Vs. CONCILIATION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions are by the same land-owner, against orders passed by the Conciliation Officer under S 20 of the Kerala Agricultural Workers Act, and the orders of the Agricultural Tribunal confirming them in appeal.

(2.) The petitioner's case before the Conciliation Officer was that he had not employed the applicants. Despite several notices, however, he did not effectively participate in the enquiry. On behalf of the applicants, oral evidence was adduced to show that they were employed by the petitioner. The petitioner did not adduce any evidence, though at the fag end of the enquiry, he produced an extract from the register maintained under S.35 to show that during the previous year, one of the applicants was the agricultural worker of another landowner.

(3.) It is contended that in view of S.35 of the Act, and R.20 to 22 of the Agricultural Workers Rules, only extracts from the register could be treated as relevant and conclusive evidence regarding employer-employee relationship In the case of one of the applications, no such extract had been produced, and according to counsel, the Conciliation Officer should have rejected that application on that ground alone. In the other, the extract produced by the petitioner should have been treated as conclusive evidence that the applicant was an employee of another land-owner.