IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL &

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA WEDNESDAY, THE 17^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 27TH POUSHA, 1945 WA NO. 85 OF 2024 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT dtd 27.11.2023 in WP(C) 2684/2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

BIJOY S., AGED 44 YEARS PROPRIETOR, PAVITHRAM BHARATH GAS AGENCY, CC NO.141938, BHARATH GAS DISTRIBUTOR, PAVITHRAM ARCADE, HIGH SCHOOL ROAD, CHERPULASSERY, PALAKKAD, PIN - 679501 BY ADV PETER JOSE CHRISTO RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

1 THE LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020

2 RAVINDRAN C., CHEVAYIL HOUSE, THARUVAKKONAM, ANANGANADI, PALAKKAD, PIN – 679501 BY SRI.BIMAL K.NATH, SR.G.P.

ADV.T.B.REMANI THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

AMIT RAWAL & C.S.SUDHA, JJ.

-----------------------------------------------------

Writ Appeal No.85 of 2024 -----------------------------------------------------

Dated this the 17^th day of January, 2024

J U D G M E N T

C.S.Sudha, J.

This writ appeal has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the judgment dated 27/11/2023 disposing W.P.(C)No.2684/2023. The petition was filed challenging the award dated 30/09/2022 in Industrial Dispute No.32/2022 on the file of the Labour Court, Kozhikode.

2. In the claim statement filed by the second respondent herein (the workman) giving rise to the industrial dispute, he claimed to have worked as driver of a vehicle owned by Pavithram Bharath Gas Agency (the Management), which vehicle was used for delivering gas cylinders to the customers. He worked in the establishment from 20/12/2009 onwards and he had drawn salary of ₹10,000/- per month. In January 2020, the Management sold the vehicle and then the workman was promised that he would be given employment as and when a new vehicle was purchased. However, when a new vehicle was purchased by the Management, the workman was not given employment. No justifiable reason(s) were given by the Management for denying employment to him nor was he given any benefits at the time of denial of employment. As there was no justifiable reason for terminating him, he sought for reinstatement in service with continuity of service and backwages with cost of ₹75,000/-.

3. The Management filed written statement denying the claims made by the workman. According to the Management, the workman had never worked as a driver in their establishment. The workman did not have a driving license with the necessary endorsement as contemplated under Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Rules, 1993 (the Rules). In the year 2019, the workman had worked as a cleaner in the vehicle owned by the Management for a few days. He was then paid wages for the days he was engaged by the Management. The workman had never worked in the establishment of the Management for a period of 240 days in a year to claim the benefits under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act). He is not an employee as defined under the Act. The claim of the workman that he was getting a salary of ₹10,000/- per month is false and incorrect. He had never been engaged by the Management. Therefore, he is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for.

4. On the basis of the pleadings, necessary issues were framed by the Labour Court. The workman examined himself as WW1 and Exts.W1 series and W2 series were marked. MW1 was examined on behalf of the Management. On the basis of the evidence on record and after hearing both sides, the Labour Court passed the impugned award holding that the denial of employment to the workman was not justified and workman has been held to get an amount of ₹60,000/- as compensation in lieu of reinstatement of service. The compensation amount was directed to be paid within two months from the date of the award and in case of failure to pay the said amount within the said period, the workman was held entitled to interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the award till realisation. Aggrieved, the