T YESUDAS Vs. MANAGER, PERIAVURRAI ESTATE, MUNNAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims to be a temporary Lathe Operator under the 1st respondent management. According to him, the 1st respondent management had illegally denied employment to him on 31.12.1999 and the trade union concerned (R-2) of which the petitioner was a member, had espoused the said grievance of the petitioner and had raised an industrial dispute and the State Government had issued G.O(Rt.)No. 87/2002, whereby the industrial dispute raised by the 2nd respondent on behalf of the petitioner workman was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Idukki, for adjudicating the issue as to whether the action of the management in having denied employment to the petitioner herein is justifiable or not and if not, what relief he is entitled to, etc. The industrial dispute was duly registered as I.D.No. 10/2002 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Idukki. According to the petitioner, the further proceedings in the industrial dispute were never properly intimated to him by the 2nd respondent union in spite of attempts in that regard made by the petitioner and in January 2011, the petitioner had come to know that the said I.D.No.10/2002 was closed as per Ext.P-4 award dated 30.7.2003 on the basis of the submission made by the 2nd respondent trade union that the matter has been settled out of court between the management and the said union in respect of the abovesaid individual grievance of the petitioner workman. It is the case of the petitioner that though Ext.P-4 award is seen to have been passed on 30.7.2003, the petitioner came to know of it only in January 2011 and thereupon, he had taken steps to secure a copy of Ext.P-4 proceedings and it is thereafter that the petitioner has filed the instant Writ Petition (Civil) on 23.2011 with the following prayers:

(2.) Heard Sri.Paulson C.Varghese, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.P.Benny P.Thomas, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent management and Sri.C.Arun Prasanth, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent Union. The Industrial Tribunal, Idukki, who has been formally arrayed as respondent No.3, is not a necessary party to this proceedings.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that Sri.D.Thomas, the father of the petitioner, was a driver of the 1st respondent management and before the retirement of his father, the petitioner was employed as a temporary Lathe Operator by the 1st respondent management and the petitioner had so entered service in the year 1995. The petitioner's case is that he was illegally denied employment by the 1st respondent management on 31.12.1999, effective from 1.1.2000. The said grievance relating to the alleged illegal denial of employment could have been individually raised by the petitioner as an industrial dispute or could have been espoused by a trade union at the instance of the worker concerned. That the petitioner had taken up the matter through the 2nd respondent union of which he was a member and the matter was referred as industrial dispute as per the above referred G.O(Rt.)No.87/2000, which resulted in the registration of I.D.No. 10/2002 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Idukki. It is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner's father (Sri.D.Thomas) had retired from the service of the 1st respondent management on 31.7.2000 and he was directed by the management to vacate the quarters allotted to him. As the petitioner was residing with his father in the said quarters, the petitioner sought permission from the management to continue to reside in the said quarters as the petitioner was employed as a temporary worker of the 1st respondent management.