The petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging Exhibit P1 Award passed in I.D.(C)No.4 of 1998 and I.D.(C) No.6 of 1998 of the Labour Court, Kozhikode. The petitioners had raised an industrial dispute alleging that they had been terminated from service by the second respondent illegally. The Labour Court considered the matter, found that the termination of the petitioners were defective for the reason of noncompliance with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). However, instead of ordering reinstatement, they were only directed to be paid the compensation stipulated by Section 25F of the Act. 2. According to the counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners had been engaged continuously for more than 240 days. The nature of the work discharged by them was not of a temporary nature but of permanent nature. Therefore, they were treated as temporary only for the purpose of overreaching the provisions of law. It has been found by the Lower Court that vouchers for payment of wages to them were periodically issued in different names. Though it would appear that there was break in service going by the vouchers produced, the petitioners were in fact working continuously without any break. It is therefore contended that it is a fit case in which Labour Court ought to have ordered reinstatement of the petitioners.
3. The contentions of the counsel for the petitioners are refuted by Sri.Lal George who appears for respondents 2 and 3. According to the counsel, the petitioners were only temporary employees engaged on casual basis, as and when need for such engagement arose. They were being paid wages as per vouchers produced before the Labour Court. Since the Labour Court has found that their termination was without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Act, respondents 2 and 3 would extend the benefits of the said provision to the petitioners. They have not chosen to challenge the Award for the said reason. It is therefore contended that no interference with Exhibit P1 is called for as prayed for by the petitioners.
4. Heard. The petitioners were admittedly engaged as temporary workers. According to the petitioners, the nature of their duties would prove that they were in fact working on permanent basis. It is only to deny to them the benefit of the provisions of the Act that they were shown in the records as temporary workers. However, there is absolutely no evidence to support the above contention. The petitioners had the opportunity to let in proper evidence before the Labour Court. The Labour Court has on going through the evidence in the case found that there was prima facie evidence to conclude that the petitioners were being paid wages on the basis of vouchers issued in the names of other persons. The Labour Court has found on a comparison of signatures in the different vouchers that the petitioners had signed even the vouchers in the names of some other persons. For the said reasons, the Labour Court has found that the termination of the petitioners ought to have been made after conforming with the formalities of Section 25F of the Act. No reinstatement has been ordered for the reason that, no evidence has been adduced to support the contention that they were permanent employees. The said situation continues to subsist before this Court also. In the absence of any evidence to show that the petitioners were permanent workers, no reinstatement could be ordered. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the conclusion of the Labour Court that the petitioners were not entitled to be reinstated in service.
The petitioners have been found entitled to compensation payable under Section 25F of the Act. Respondents 2 and 3 have been directed to pay compensation to the petitioners in accordance with the said provision. I am not satisfied that the petitioners are entitled to any further relief.
For the above reasons, this writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
kkj Sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE