ACHUTAN Vs. BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner challenges Ext. P2 order passed by the Labour Court, Kannur, the 2nd respondent.

(2.) First respondent herein filed a claim petition (C.P. 66/89) under S.33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the second respondent for determining the amount due to him. First respondent's case was that he was employed as a worker in the studio owned by the petitioner herein. He was 'promised' by the petitioner herein to pay wages in lumpsum on demand since that amount is also utilised for the improvement of the studio. According to him, he joined the service of the petitioner herein on 16.9.1985 and he was paid Rs. 350/- only. He left the studio in June, 1988. He claimed Rs. 24,087/- including wages, bonus, leave wages etc.

(3.) Petitioner, who is the owner of the studio, disputed the said claim and contended, inter alia, that the application itself is not maintainable; that the applicant was only given an opportunity for studying photography as he was personally known to him and that the applicant can at best, claim the status of an apprentice. The applicant was paid Rs. 2 to Rs. 25/- out of humanitarian ground though he was not entitled for any amount