Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN THURSDAY, THE3D DAY OF APRIL201413TH CHAITHRA, 1936 WA.No.459 of 2014 IN WP(C).21113/2010 ------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER
/JUDGMENT
IN WP(C) 21113/2010 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED2001-2014 APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT: -------------------------- P.SHAILAJA, W/O.D.KESHAVAN, MUNGILA VEEDU, KOTTEKKAR, P.O.KUMBLA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT - 671 321. BY ADVS.SRI.K.SHRIHARI RAO SMT.N.SHOBHA SRI.K.S.BALAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/2ND RESPONDENT.: ------------------------------------------ 1. THE PRESIDENT, KUMBLA MERCHANTS WELFARE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, P.O.KUMBLA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT - 671 321.
2. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, THE LABOUR COURT, KANNUR - 670 001. R1 BY ADV.SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON0304-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC & ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JJ.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- W.A.No.459 of 2014 -------------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 03rd day of April, 2014 JUDGMENT
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
This appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge interfering with the award of the Labour Court, Kannur in I.D.No.37 of 2005 whereby the Labour Court held that the termination of the appellant was not justifiable and held that she will be entitled to reinstatement with backwages with effect from 26/12/2001 at the rate of 50% on her last drawn salary.
2. The case of the appellant is that she was appointed as Secretary in the society on a temporary basis and worked in that capacity from 1993. She also says that she was issued an appointment order only on 04/07/2001 and on that basis joined duty on 10/07/2001. She further claims that thereafter she worked continuously and was paid salary only for one month. It is her case that, while continuing so, on 26/12/2001 her W.A.No.459 of 2014 2 service was abruptly dispensed with. It was following this, she raised a dispute which was referred to the Labour Court, which registered the dispute as I.D.No.37 of 2005. In the dispute the Labour Court rendered its award holding the termination to be illegal and directing reinstatement with backwages. The learned Single Judge, held that she was only a temporary employee and as she was guilty of misconducts, the termination cannot be said to be unjustified. On that basis the learned Single Judge set aside the award and rendered this judgment which is under challenge in this Appeal.
3. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned counsel for the first respondent employer.
4. Perusal of the award shows that Labour Court accepted the case of the appellant that she was employed in the society from 1993. However, this conclusion of the Labour Court was ignoring the fact the appellant had not produced even a single scrap of paper to prove that she was employed in the society at the time of the order dated 04/07/2001, W.A.No.459 of 2014 3 appointing her temporarily as Secretary. That apart, even going by Ext.P3, the post of Secretary was sanctioned only in 2001 and apart from Ext.P2, there is nothing else proving her employment. If that be so, the Labour Court could not have concluded in favour of the appellant regarding her employment prior to 2001.
5. Even the appointment from 04/07/2001 as is evident from Ext.P2, was only a temporary one. It was the specific case of the bank that, after working for one month the appellant had abandoned the post. While the appellant claimed that she continued her employment till 26/12/2001 which was disputed by the Bank, the appellant did not produce any document in support of that claim. In such circumstances the only inference that is possible is that the appellant is only a temporary employee, who was appointed only on 04/07/2001 and that her service commenced only thereafter. Insofar as termination is concerned, although the Labour Court proceeds on the basis that the termination was W.A.No.459 of 2014 4 for a misconduct, the register containing the minutes produced by the bank shows that, it was termination without any reference whatsoever to the allegation of misconduct against the appellant. Termination of employee appointed temporarily does not attract any other consequence. That apart, since the termination was not for a misconduct, it is also not necessary for the employer to conduct any enquiry also. In such circumstances we do not find any illegality in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The Writ Appeal is therefore dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE skj True copy P.A. To Judge