MAMMEN VARGHESE Vs. RAMESH G.PARRAT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, first management in the dispute, has challenged Ext.P5 award. The respondent workman claims to have been working in the petitioner's shop and contended that he was denied employment without any reasonable cause. The employee, in fact, had a contention that he was employed in the petitioner's shop which was a branch of a concern with Head Office at Chennai. The said management was also impleaded, but, however, the Labour Court has found that the petitioner is the management who had employed the respondent workman. In such circumstances the contention whether the workman was employed in the branch of M/s. Mindstorm Computer Information (P) Ltd., need not at all be looked into.

(2.) The respondent workman claims to have been employed from 11.09.1993 to 19.12.1994. The workman contended that he had claimed minimum wages and had also initiated proceedings before appropriate forum, upon which the management had terminated him from service. The workman examined himself and marked five documents. The first management examined themselves and marked three documents. The proceedings initiated by the workman for getting minimum wages was also produced as Ext.P1.

(3.) The Labour Court had placed reliance on Ext.W3 certificate issued by the management dated 12.07.1994. This Court has examined the said certificate, which certificate is one issued certifying the employment of the workman between 11.09.1993 and 19.12.1994. The contention of the management is that this belies the specific contention made by the petitioner that he was first appointed on 11.09.1993. The certificate indicates experience from 11.07.1993 and the same is not in consonance with the claim statement, argues counsel. However, the management admitted the issuance of Ext.W3 certificate allegedly for reason that the workman had made a request for issuance of a certificate to seek employment in the gulf countries.