A O THOMAS Vs. T K RAMESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the appeals, having arisen out of the same judgment in O. P. No. 6720 of 1990 dated July 11, 1994 were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The petitioner in the O. P. (hereinafter called 'the committee') is the appellant in W. A. No. 1398 of 1994 and the second respondent in the O. P. (hereinafter called 'the aggrieved employee') is the appellant in W. A. No. 1300 of 1994.

(2.) THE original petition was filed challenging the order of the appellate authority under Section 18 (2) of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960 (for short, the Act) who held that the termination of the services of the aggrieved employee by the committee was without any reasonable cause and was made in violation of the provisions of Section 18 (1) of the Act. The committee was directed to reinstate the employee in its service as Lift Operator-cum-watchman with continuity of service and full back wages and in default, to pay the employee Rs. 28,000/- as compensation inclusive of all service benefits and back wages.

(3.) THE facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner in the O. P. is the maintenance Committee, Unity Complex, Sree Narayana Park Road, Cannanore. A five storeyed building called 'unity Complex' was constructed by a partnership firm consisting of 18 persons. During the construction of the building a Maintenance Committee consisting of 6 members was constituted to supervise the construction of the building. On completion of the construction of the building, the partnership was dissolved on August 6, 1986. The building consists of flats and the partners occupied each of the flats separately. The Maintenance Committee, however, continued to function to maintain the passages, all the terraced areas above the 5th floor, the rooms therein, toilet rooms, and like convenience, stair case, courtyard, toilet in the ground floor, near the stair case etc. , and all the common facilities attached to and available in the building. Some of the partners rented out their flats and others used them for their own purpose. In October, 1986, a lift was erected in the building. The aggrieved employee (second respondent in the O. P.) was appointed by the committee on part-time basis along with another as a Lift-Operator-cum-Watchman with effect from October 6, 1986. One year after the appointment of Lift Operators, the Committee decided to retain only one of them. After service of due notice, the services of the aggrieved employee were terminated with effect from October 15, 1987. While serving the termination order, the employee was offered his balance salary for the month of October, 1987, half A month's salary as compensation and one month's salary in lieu of notice of one month. The aggrieved employee accepted the notice but did not receive the compensation and notice pay. Thereafter, he filed Shop appeal No. 66 of 1987 dated December 5, 1987 before the appellate authority under Section 18 (2) of the Act. After taking evidence and hearing the parties, the appellate authority passed the order as stated above. Against the order of the appellate authority, the committee filed the Original Petition.