IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI MONDAY, THE 27^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 2684 OF 2023 PETITIONER/S:

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 RESPONDENT/S:

1 THE LABOUR COURT, THE LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE, PIN -

673020

2 RAVINDRAN C., CHEVAYIL HOUSE, THARUVAKKONAM, ANANGANADI, PALAKKAD, PIN - 679501 BY ADV T.B.REMANI OTHER PRESENT:

GP SMT SHEEBA G THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The Writ Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the 1^st respondent Labour court in ID No.32/2022. As per the said award of the Labour court, Rs.60,000/- was passed as compensation in view of reinstatement of service with 6% interest on failure, to pay the amount within 2 months. The 2^nd respondent herein raised an industrial dispute and it was referred to the Labour court as per GO(Rt.) No.662/2022/LBR dated 14.6.2022 for adjudication.

2. Ext.P1 is the claim statement made by 2^nd respondent.

His claim is that he was a driver in a vehicle used for delivery gas cylinders to the consumers from 20.12.2009 onwards and in 2020 the management sold the vehicle and at that time he was assured that he would be given employment as and when a new vehicle is purchased. When a new vehicle was purchased, the management did not give him employment and thus, there was denial of employment. The workmen claimed that his last drawn salary was Rs.10,000/- per month and prayed for reinstatement of service with continuity of service and backwages of Rs.75000/.

3. A written statement was filed by the petitioner. It was contended that the 2^nd respondent never worked as a driver of the vehicle that was used for delivery of gas cylinders. The drivers of vehicles in which gas cylinders are delivered must possess hazardous good endorsement in the driving license as per the Motor Vehicles Act. The 2^nd respondent has worked as a cleaner in the vehicle. He was paid wages on the days when he was engaged by the management. The worker had never worked in the management establishment for a period of 240 days, in any year, to claim the benefits under the Industrial Disputes Act. The fact that the workman was earning Rs.10,000/- per month, was denied.

4. On behalf of the workman, he himself was examined WW1 and W1 series and W2 series were marked. On behalf of the management, the proprietor was examined as MW1, but there was no documentary evidence.

5. The main contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is three folded, they are:

(i) There is no endorsement in the license of the 2^nd respondent regarding hazardous goods endorsement and in the absence of any endorsement, the workman could not have worked as a driver in the vehicle, which delivers gas cylinders, as it is mandatory that only a driver who is having an endorsement in his driving license can be engaged as driver, (ii) The workman had not worked for 240 days preceding his termination, and (iii) There is no evidence to show that he had worked for a continuous period of 10 years.

6. The Labour court, relying on Ext.W1series, came to the finding that though there is no endorsement in the license of the workman regarding dangerous and hazardous goods, Ext.W1 series would show that he was having certificate from the institute of Fire and Safety Technology showing that he had attended 3 days training course at IFAST for the drivers of the vehicles carrying dangerous and hazardous goods as provided in sub rule 1 of Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Rules, 1993. Ext.W1 series also would show that he also possessed a certificate for driving goods carriage. To a petition filed by the management as I.A.No. 224 of 2022, to direct the workman to produce the driving license with the endorsem