K.L. Manjunath J.

1. Legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.38461/2011, dated 28.03.2012 is called in question in this appeal.

2. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

3. The appellant was working as a workman under the respondent-Company and joined respondent-factory in July 1998. Prior to that, he had 2 acres of agricultural land. In the year 1995, 2 acres of land situated in Sy.No.36/9, which was his ancestral property was sold to the respondent-Company and adjoining land measuring 1 acre 20 guntas which was owned by his uncle Seethappa, was also sold to the respondent-Company with an assurance that after construction of the factory, he would be given an employment. Accordingly, he was given an employment by the respondent-Company. It is also his case that on the assurance that he would be given employment, he was made to sell his agricultural land. He was working in the respondent-Company drawing salary of Rs.2050/- per month upto 03.10.1999. From 03.10.1999, he was not allowed to enter into the premises of the respondent-Company and he was denied the work. Therefore, he raised a dispute. The matter was referred by the State Government to the Labour Court in Ref.No.8/2005. It was contended by the respondent-factory that the appellant was on probation, he was appointed on 31.03.1999. Prior to that, he was working as a apprentice and as per the rules of the Company, the appellant was required to undergo a medical test. Accordingly, he underwent medical test. The medical report disclosed that he was a HIV infected person. Having learnt that he is an HIV infected person, the appellant on his own voluntarily abandoned the work. Therefore, the respondent-Company requested the Labour Court to dismiss the reference. It was also contended that the reference was barred by time.

4. Before the labour Court, the appellant was examined as WW1, he relied upon Exs.W1 to W16. On behalf of the Management one Rafeeque Ahmed Agadi was examined as MW1 and the Management relied upon Exs.M1 to M5.

5. The Labour Court after appreciating the evidence, came to the conclusion that there was no denial of work by the respondent-Company. Since the appellant was an HIV infected person, on his own had abandoned the work and that there was no refusal of the work by the second party. Labour Court also came to the conclusion that, there is delay in approaching the Court. Accordingly, the reference was rejected by an order dated 20.02.2010.

6. Challenging the legality and correctness of the said order, the appellant filed writ petition before the learned Single Judge.

7. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the Labour Court could not have rejected the reference on the ground of delay. However, he came to the conclusion that there was no refusal of the work by the Management and on the contrary, the appellant on his own has abandoned the work. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. Challenging the concurrent findings, the present appeal is filed.

8. Sri. A.J. Srinivasan, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant, who was the owner of 2 acres of land, which was the only livelihood for the appellant and his family members, was forced to sell the land to the respondent-Company for constraction of the factory with an assurance that he would be given an employment. Accordingly, he worked as apprentice and later, a formal appointment order was issued. He was directed to undergo medical examination. Then only it was learnt by the respondent-Company and the appellant that he was an of HIV infected person. The Management having noticed that the appellant is suffering from HIV positive, as in the year 1999 it was considered to be very deadly disease the people were afraid of even speaking to such persons, the Management cleverly refused to give work and he was not allowed to enter into the premises and on account of the act of the respondent, the appellant is suffering from