K. Muraleedharan v. Larsen & Toubro Limited & Others (WA 1485 of 2023)

**WA NO.1485 OF 2023** **1** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR** **MONDAY, THE 18[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945 WA NO.1485 OF 2023** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 27375/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT:** K.MURALEEDHARAN AGED 60 YEARS KUMARANCHIRA MADOM, NANDIPULAM, THRISSUR., PIN - 680312 BY ADVS. P.CHANDRASEKHAR C.RAMAN JENNY THANKAM ANOOP KRISHNA ANAND SANKAR REGIMOL M.K. ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER M/S LARSEN & TOUBRO LIMITED, ECC CONSTRUCTION DIVISION, MOUNT POONAMALLEE ROAD, MANAPAKKAM, P.B. NO. 979, CHENNAI, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, MR. S. MURALI., PIN - 600089 **WA NO.1485 OF 2023** **2** 2 THE PROJECT MANAGER M/S L&T HCP LIMITED, C/O BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, AMBALAMUGAL, KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, MR. V. JAYACHANDRAN., PIN - 682302 3 THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUMLABOUR COURT 8TH FLOOR, K.S.H.B. BUILDING, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682036 BY ADVS. Gopikrishnan Nambiar M E.K.NANDAKUMAR (SR.)(N-23) K.JOHN MATHAI(K/413/1984) JOSON MANAVALAN(J-526) KURYAN THOMAS(K/131/2003) PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM(MAH/58/2006) RAJA KANNAN(K/356/2008) THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.10.2023, THE COURT ON 18.12.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WA NO.1485 OF 2023** **3** ## **ANU SIVARAMAN, J. & C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, J.** = **= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.A.No1485 of 2023** **= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 18[th] day of December, 2023** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Anu Sivaraman, J.** 1. The only legal question raised before us in this appeal is whether the learned single Judge was justified in considering whether the award of the Labour Court was based on any misreading of the evidence amounting to travesty or not. The Labour Court had considered the material placed on record and passed an award of retrenchment compensation of Rs.8 lakhs, being 50% of the backwages and other consequential benefits. The learned single Judge held that in a case where the award of the Labour Court is based upon a misreading of the evidence amounting to travesty, the writ court would be fully justified in exercising the power of judicial review. On a finding that the documents produced by the workman before the Labour Court did not disclose the existence of an employer-employee relationship between the parties, the award was held to be unsustainable and was set aside. **WA NO.1485 OF 2023** **4** 2. The learned counsel for the appellant places reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in **State of Maharashtra v. Labour Law Practitioners' Association and others** [1998 KHC 780] to contend that since the Labour Court Judges are also included in the definition of District Judge, the Labour Court is also to be considered as a court and its orders cannot be challenged before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is further contended that the challenge can only be on the grounds referable to Article 226 and a difference of opinion with the Labour Court or the fact that a different view is possible, on facts, is not a ground for the High Court to interfere with a decision of a Court or Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act. Reliance is also placed on a Bench decision of this Court in **Rajagopal B v. Jomy Xavier and another** [2010(2) KHC 196]. The decision in **Ram Kishan Fauji v. State of Haryana and others** [2017 KHC 6215] is relied on to contend that a learned single Judge of this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot quash a recommendation of Lok Ayukta. It is further contended that the writ petition itself was **WA NO.1485 OF 2023** **5** not maintainable since no writ is maintainable in private disputes coming within the realm of private law. The decisions in **M/s. Manu Mohit Industries v State of J&K and others** , [OWP No.1126 of 2014 dated 19.7.2022] and **Hari Prakash Shukla v State of Uttar Pradesh** [2023 KHC 6686] are also relied on. 3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, would contend that the findings of the Labour Court that the workmen had been engaged by the Management was completely perverse and without any material whatsoever. It is contended that the documents produced along with the writ petition, which were the documents available on record before the Labour Court, clearly proved that the workmen had been engaged not by the respondent, but by an intermediate contractor. It is submitted that this aspect is clear from the penultimate paragraph of the Labour Court Award itself and that the finding that somebody other than the employer had to pay the compensation was completely perverse and devoid of jurisdiction. **The Manager,** **WA NO.1485 OF 2023** **6** ## **Arrapetta Estate, Harrisons Malayalam Limited v** **Smt.Susheela & Ors** .[ Judgment dated 4.4.2018 in W.P. (C).No.17884 of 2013 ] is relied on by the learned Senior Counsel. 4. It is further submitted that the issue with regard to the nature of the challenge to a Labour Court award stands covered by a judgment of this Court in W.P.(C).No.17884 of 2013 dated 4.4.2018 where the authorities on the point have been discussed threadbare and this Court came to the conclusion that the power being exercised is of judicial review and a writ petition would be maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as against an award of the Labour Court. It is further contended that if it is the specific contention of the appellant that what was being exercised was only the jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, then no writ appeal would also lie from the judgment of the learned single Judge in view of Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act. **WA NO.1485 OF 2023** **7** 5. Having considered the contentions advanced, we notice that the learned single Judge had proceeded to set aside the award on the basis of the finding that the findings of the Labour Court were perverse. In **Syed Yakoob v. K.S.Radhakrishnan** [AIR 1964 SC 477] it was held that in regard to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. We cannot agree with the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that such an exercise cannot be carried out by this Court exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is on examining the material on record that the learned single Judge came to the conclusion that the documents produced by the appellant workman were not sufficient to establish that the appellant was directly employed by the management. From the facts on record also, we notice that the appellant had not succeeded in producing material to show that he had been engaged by the respondent herein **WA NO.1485 OF 2023** **8** directly. The provisions of the I.D.Act do not permit directions to anybody, except the employer of a workmen to either reinstate, or to grant him monetary benefits in view of such reinstatement. In the above view of the matter, in the absence of any conclusive material to show that the workmen had been engaged by the respondent herein, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the contentions raised in the writ appeal. The appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. **==> picture [24 x 12] intentionally omitted <==** **Anu Sivaraman, Judge** sd/- **C. Pratheep Kumar, Judge** sj13/11