POOTHUNDU ESTATE, PADAGIRY P.O., NELLIAMPATHY, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER Vs. GENERAL SECRETARY, NATIONAL PLANTATION WORKERS UNION (UTUC), PADAGIRY P.O.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The management in an Industrial Dispute, is the petitioner herein. The dispute was raised by the respondent union, for and on behalf of a worker by name Smt.Raji, w/o.Surendran, worker, Poothundu Estate, Nelliampathy. The Industrial Dispute was referred by the Government of Kerala to the Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad for adjudication. The issue referred for adjudication was as follows:

(2.) The Tribunal considered the evidence that was adduced on behalf of the union, which comprised principally of the deposition of the worker concerned, as also a letter dated 04.03.2008 of the plantation Inspector, Nenmara, referring to an inspection conducted in the plantation on 07.07.2007. The said document indicated that an enquiry was conducted by the Inspector and the evidence collected from workers in the plantation showed that the worker in question, namely Smt. Raji, w/o.Surendran, had worked in the plantation as a casual worker, for six years and was being paid wages at the rate of Rs. 90/- per working day. The aforesaid evidence was contested by the management before the tribunal. When the Manager of the plantation was examined as the management witness, in cross-examination, he admitted that Smt.Raji had also worked as a casual worker in the plantation. It was also deposed that persons who had worked for 10 to 12 years as casual workers, were normally regularised in the plantation. It would appear that, subsequently, the management witness back tracked from his earlier version and deposed that his statement in the written statement, supported by an affidavit, was the correct one, and the earlier deposition was inadvertently made. The Tribunal, that went into the evidence, found that the documents produced on behalf of the worker, which comprised of a document that was prepared by an independent public official, clearly indicated that the worker in question, along with other workers, were found working in the estate on 07.07.2007. There was also evidence to suggest that the worker in question was working continuously for six years and was receiving wages at the rate of Rs. 90/- per day. This evidence was seen as sufficient to hold in favour of the worker with regard to her continuous service in the plantation. The contention of the management was rejected after disbelieving the deposition of the management witness, who was suspected of suppressing real facts, since he kept changing his version before the tribunal. The tribunal found that the worker, who had been working in the plantation from April 2003 had been denied employment from 01.01.2008 onwards and hence, was entitled to the relief of reinstatement with attendant benefits. While ordering reinstatement, however, the tribunal found the worker entitled to be reinstated as a regular worker, and also entitled to backwages amounting to Rs. 90/- per day for 240 days per year from 01.01.2008 onwards, and for the wages at the rate paid to regular worker, if she in not reinstated within one month from the date of commencement of the award.

(3.) The award of the industrial tribunal is impugned by the management in the instant writ petition, primarily on the contention that, since it was always the case of the worker before the tribunal that she was engaged on casual basis from 2003 onwards, the tribunal could not have reinstated her in service with effect from 01.01.2008 as a regular worker. It is further pointed out that the tribunal erred in granting the worker backwages @ Rs. 90/- per day for 240 days for the years from 01.01.2008 onwards. It is contended that the aforesaid reliefs granted to the worker are contrary to the claim of the worker itself, in that she had never claimed that she was a regular worker, who had been denied employment with effect from 01.01.2008, and further that as a casual worker, she was not entitled to the benefit of regularisation, since the said relief of regularisation in service could not have been granted by the tribunal at all, in the absence of evidence to show that there was a continuous work discharged by the worker for a considerably long period of time.