Kerala High Court
Ram Reni Transport vs Murukesan on 26 March, 2025
WP(C) NO. 2163 OF 2018 &
WP(C) NO. 1125 OF 2020 1 2025:KER:25352
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
WEDNESDAY, THE 26th DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 2163 OF 2018
PETITIONERS:
RAM RENI TRANSPORT, M.G.ROAD, THRISSUR,
1 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER NANDHINI. R.
NALLAPPA TRANSPORT,
POLLACHI - COIMBATORE ROAD, POLLACHI - 642 102,
2 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
SENTHIL KUMAR. A.
BY ADVS. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN
SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR
SMT.ASHA K.SHENOY
SRI.T.C.KRISHNA
SMT.PREETHI RAMAKRISHNAN P-212
SRI.PRATAP ABRAHAM VARGHESE
RESPONDENTS:
MURUKESAN, S/o P.K. KRISHNAN CHETTIAR,
DEVANGAPURAM, 1ST STREET, CHITTOOR,
1
PALAKKAD - 678 506.
K. RATHINAKUMAR, S/o P.L. KRISHNASWAMY, DOOR NO.
2 18/28,SRMS MILL VEETHI, POLLACHI, TAMIL NADU -
642 001.
3 M. KANDASWAMY, S/o MARIYAPPAN GOUNDER, 1/40,
ARSUR, KAMBALAPETTY P.O., POLLACHI,
WP(C) NO. 2163 OF 2018 &
WP(C) NO. 1125 OF 2020 2 2025:KER:25352
TAMIL NADU -642 007.
CHANDRAN, S/o NARAYANA MANNADIYAR,
NO. 8, GOVINDAPURAM P.O., MUTHALAMADA,
4
PALAKKAD - 678 507.
RAVI, S/o NARAYANAN EZHUTHACHAN, S.V. STREET,
5 KOLLENGODE, PALAKKAD - 678 506.
A. ARAVINDAN, S/o A.ACHUTHAN, THOZHIL PETTA,
6 VINAYAKAR STREET, POLLACHI, TAMIL NADU - 642 001.
MANAGING PARTNER, NTP BUS SERVICES,
THIRUNJANA SAMBANTHAR VEETHI, LIC COLONY,
7
MAHALINGAPURAM, POLLACHI, TAMIL NADU -642 001.
NITHYA TRANSPORT, M.G. ROAD,
8 POOTHOLE, THRISSUR - 680 004.
M/s MANIKANDAN BUS SERVICES, M.G. ROAD,
9 POOTHOLE, THRISSUR - 680 004.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL,
10 PALAKKAD, PIN - 678 002.
BY ADVS. SMT.ANU JACOB
SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN
SRI.K.V.WINSTON
SRI.P.THOMAS GEEVERGHESE
SRI.TONY THOMAS INCHIPARAMBIL
BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SURYA BINOY (R10)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 11.03.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).1125/2020, THE COURT ON
26.03.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 2163 OF 2018 &
WP(C) NO. 1125 OF 2020 3 2025:KER:25352
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
WEDNESDAY, THE 26th DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 1125 OF 2020
PETITIONERS:
R. NANDINI, MANAGING PARTNER,
1 M/s RAM RENI TRANSPORT, M.G. ROAD, THRISSUR.
SHAJAHAN, S/o MUHAMMED HANEEFA, PULIYANKAVUKALA,
2 POOKUNNI, VADAVANNUR P O, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD.
BY ADV P.DEEPAK
RESPONDENTS:
THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
1
CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD-678001.
THE SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD,
2
CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD-678001.
MURUKESAN, S/o P.K. KRISHNAN CHETTIAR,
DEVANGAPURAM, 1ST STREET, CHITTUR,
3
PALAKKAD-678506.
4 K. RATHINAKUMAR, S/o P.L. KRISHNASWAMY,
WP(C) NO. 2163 OF 2018 &
WP(C) NO. 1125 OF 2020 4 2025:KER:25352
DOOR NO. 18/28, SRMS MILL VEETHI,
POLLACHI, TAMIL NADU-642001.
M. KANDASWAMY, S/o MARIYAPPAN GOUNDER,
1/40 ARASUR, KAMBALAPETTY P O, POLLACHI,
5
TAMIL NADU-642007.
CHANDRAN, S/o NARAYANA MANNADIYAR,
NO.8, GOVINDAPURAM P O, MUTHALAMADA,
6
PALAKKAD-678507.
RAVI, S/o NARAYANAN EZHUTHACHAN,
7 S.V. STREET, KOLLENGODE, PALAKKAD-678506.
A. ARAVINDAN, S/o A. ACHUTHAN,
THOZHIL PETTA, VINAYAKAR STREET,
POLLACHI, TAMIL NADU-642001.
8
BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SURYA BINOY (R1 &
R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 11.03.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).2163/2018, THE COURT ON
26.03.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 2163 OF 2018 &
WP(C) NO. 1125 OF 2020 5 2025:KER:25352
JUDGMENT
W.P.(C) No.2163 of 2018 is filed challenging Ext.P4 common award
passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad, dated 06.11.2017 in Industrial
Dispute No.2/2016. The 1st and 2nd petitioners are partnership firms engaged
in stage carriage services.
2. Respondents 1 to 6 in the writ petition filed an application under
Section 2 (A) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, seeking relief against the
denial of employment by the management and also for reinstatement in
service with back wages. Subsequently, the same subject matter was referred
as per the Government Order dated 16.12.2015. The application filed under
Section 2 (A) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was taken on file as
O.A.I.D. No.1/2015, and the reference was taken on file as I.D.No.2/2016, and as
the issues and the parties were common, both the disputes were considered
jointly leading to Ext.P4 common award.
3. The respondents 1 to 6 of this writ petition contended that they were
working as Drivers, Conductors and Cleaners in the bus service owned by the
7th respondent, Managing Partner, NTP Bus Services. Later on, based on the
contention raised by the management, M/s Ram Reni Transport, M/s Nithya
WP(C) NO. 2163 OF 2018 &
WP(C) NO. 1125 OF 2020 6 2025:KER:25352
Transport, M/s Nallappa Transport and M/s Manikandan Bus Services were
impleaded as supplementary parties. The Workmen contended that the
management was running buses bearing Registration Numbers (1) KL-10-Q-
8600, (2) KL-11 R 5851, (3) KL-13 P 8719, (4) KL 08 Z 9118, (5) KL 08 D 7135, (6)
KL 08 AB 4007, (7) KL 09 B5670, (8) KL 13 H 7272 (9) KL 8 Y 1484 (10) KLQ 2005,
(11) KL 9 AA 8060 and (12) KL 8 X 1683 and had many routes allotted by the
Regional Transport Authority including inter-state permit on Pollachi-
Thrissur route. Alleging that the workmen were not paid their statutory
entitlements and that the management had asked them to work in all buses
the management owned and that the workers had worked in all the buses of
the management which were plying in the name of NTP bus service
interchangeably, a complaint was raised that the management had denied
employment to them which was illegal and therefore they claimed
reinstatement with back wages.
4. The management contended that Sri. Ramaswamy Gounder had no
relation to the NTP Bus Service, and he is the Managing Partner of Nithya
Transport and Manikandan Bus Service, partnership firms constituted on
27.03.2013 and 1.06.2006, respectively. It was stated that Smt. Nandini is the
Managing Partner of Ram Reni Transport, a firm constituted on 01.09.1990. It
WP(C) NO. 2163 OF 2018 &
WP(C) NO. 1125 OF 2020 7 2025:KER:25352
was stated that Nallappa Transport had no relationship whatsoever in the
dispute. In short, they contended that there was no employer-employee
relationship between the workers and the NTP Bus Service and Nallappa
Transport and that all the five managements in the dispute were
independent.
5. It was further alleged that Sri. Murukesan and Sri. Aravindan,
respondents 1 and 6, were working in Ram Reni Transport and had resigned
voluntarily and Sri. Aravindan settled his Employees Provident Fund on
12.10.2010 and received Rs.1,31,185/-, while Sri. Murukesan who was working
from 01.08.2010 to 02/2011, had resigned from service. It was stated that Sri.
Rathinakumar, Sri. M. Kandaswami and Sri. N. Chandran, respondents 2 to 4,
had resigned from Manikandan Bus Service on 06.06.2005 and had also
received a refund from the Motor Thozhilali Welfare Fund Board. It was
stated that the Sri. Ravi, the fifth respondent, has not worked at all in the 2nd,
3rd and 5th management at any point in time and had no employer-employee
relationship between them. Workers No.2 to 4 in the dispute had worked in
Nithya Transport subsequently and had resigned from service on 05.08.2011,
11.06.2011 and 30.08.2011, respectively. They contend that there was no
occasion for any denial of employment to workers 1 to 6 in the above dispute
WP(C) NO. 2163 OF 2018 &
WP(C) NO. 1125 OF 2020 8 2025:KER:25352
by management Nos.2, 3 and 5 and hence they are not entitled to any relief as
claimed.
6. Through the award impugned, it was found that workmen Nos.1, 2, 3,
4 and 6 continued service in the management with effect from 15.06.1994 and
Sri. Ravi, the 5th workman, had continued service in the management with
effect from 2005 onwards and in the absence of the management producing
the relevant documents like Attendance Register, Wages Register and Service
Records, adverse inference had to be drawn against them and accordingly, the
award was passed holding that management Nos.1 to 5 had denied
employment to the workers. The operative portion of the award runs as
follows:
"27. In the result an award is passed holding that the management
Nos.1 to 5 in the above matter have denied employment to the
workers herein and the Workers No.1, 2, 3 4 and 6 are entitled to
receive Rs.1,75,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy Five Thousand
Only) and the 5th workman Sri. Ravi is entitled to receive
Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand Only) as
compensation. If the management is opting not to pay the
compensation amount the workers are entitled to the
reinstatement with continuity of service. They will also be entitled
to the back wages amounting to 35% of the total back wages due
WP(C) NO. 2163 OF 2018 &
WP(C) NO. 1125 OF 2020 9 2025:KER:25352
which is to be calculated on the basis of the last drawn salary
shown in the schedule attached to the complaint. The
management has to exercise their option to pay compensation
within 60 days from the date of pronouncement of this award in
the open court by paying the amount of compensation. If the
option is not exercised by the management, the workers will be
entitled to re-instatement with continuity of service and 35% of
the total back wages as mentioned above. It is also made clear that
the Management No.1 to 5 are jointly and severally liable to
comply this award."
7. The writ petition is filed by Ram Reni Transport and Nallappa
Transport alone, management Nos.2 and 4, respectively.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. P. Ramakrishnan argues
that neither in the claim statement nor in the evidence adduced by the
Tribunal did the workers claim employment under the petitioners, and
therefore, there was no question of the petitioners being mulcted with any
liability. It is also argued that the documents produced showed that the sixth
respondent closed his PF account and left the services and Exts.P9 and P10
showed that applications were submitted under the provisions of the Payment
of Gratuity Act, 1972 which reveals that workers had left the service
voluntarily and therefore the finding that the workers were denied
WP(C) NO. 2163 OF 2018 &
WP(C) NO. 1125 OF 2020 10 2025:KER:25352
employment is without any evidence.
9. It is also pointed out that Ext.P3 statement shows that respondents 2
to 4 had left services on 06.06.2005 accepting their eligible dues from the
Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Board and the 8th respondent
had admitted that respondents 2 to 4 had thereafter worked under the said
respondents till 05.08.2011, 11.06.2011 and 30.08.2011 respectively and in the
light of the said admission and the evidence of MW1, no liability could have
been cast on the petitioners. It is argued that reliance was wrongly placed on
the photographs produced while filing W.P.(C) No.31790/2014, filed on behalf
of respondents 8 and 9 by Sri. Ramaswamy, the Managing Partner of those
firms, seeking police protection. Though the Tribunal found that the date of
entry in the service claimed by respondents 1 to 6 cannot be accepted, it found
fault with the management for not producing the relevant documents.
10. The Tribunal relied on an identity card and receipts issued by a
trade union to conclude that the 5th respondent was appointed in the year
2005. The evidence let in by the workers clearly showed that they were not
even aware of any particulars relating to NTP bus services under which they
claimed they were employed. In any view of the matter, in the absence of any
evidence to suggest the wages allegedly received by the workmen, the length
WP(C) NO. 2163 OF 2018 &
WP(C) NO. 1125 OF 2020 11 2025:KER:25352
of service or as under whom they worked, the award fixing the compensation
is liable to be interfered with.
11. Learned counsel for respondents Sri. Jacob Sebastian, based on the
counter affidavit that has been filed on behalf of the workmen, argued that
the admission of MW1 that Nallappa Gounder, the father-in-law of Sri.
Ramaswamy Gounder had started the bus service in the name of the style of
NTP, and that Sri. Senthil Kumar, the Managing Director of Nallappa
Transport, is the grandson of Nallappa Gounder and Smt. Nandini, the
Managing Director of Ram Reni Transport is the granddaughter of Sri.
Nallappa Gounder and that Sri. Ramaswamy, the Managing Director of Nithya
Transport and Manikandan Bus Service, is the son-in-law of Sri. Nallappa
Gounder.
12. He further argued that It was relying on Ext.W1 series, W13, W15
and the evidence of MW1 that the award was passed. It is also contended that
all the managements were owned by the same persons and since common bus
services were being conducted and the workers were employed
interchangeably, they could not give specific details about their employer. The
action of the management in doing so was with ulterior motives and to
deprive the workers of their legitimate entitlements. It is not a case that the
WP(C) NO. 2163 OF 2018 &
WP(C) NO. 1125 OF 2020 12 2025:KER:25352
award was passed without any evidence at all. Reliance was also placed on the
judgment of this Court in Rajagopal B v. Jomy Xavier and Another [2010 (2)
KHC 196] to contend that only in cases of perversity and glaring illegality, is
interference warranted. It is also pointed out that since the operation of the
award was stayed by this Court, the workers were unable to execute the
award. Even the applications filed under Section 17 B of the Industrial
Disputes Act did not produce any result. It is, therefore contended that no
interference is warranted with Ext.P4 order and accordingly prayed for
dismissal of the writ petition.
13. Heard learned Counsel on either side and perused the records.
14. On the basis of the pleadings referred to above and appreciating the
evidence, both oral and documentary, Ext.P4 award was passed accepting the
contentions of the workmen for the following reasons:
a) On the issue of whether there is any bus service in the name NTP, the
Tribunal relied on the deposition of MW1, along with documentary evidence
(Ext.W1 series), which established that the bus services under different names
--Nithya Transport, Manikandan Bus Service, and Ram Reni Transport--were
all part of a family-run enterprise originating from Nallappa Gounder. MW1
admitted that multiple buses from these companies operated under the
WP(C) NO. 2163 OF 2018 &
WP(C) NO. 1125 OF 2020 13 2025:KER:25352
common name "NTP," which indicated that they were not independent
entities but rather interconnected businesses under the same family
management and from Exts. W13 and W15, it was found that the name of the
buses is NTP Bus Service. Also, Sri Ramaswamy Gounder filed a written
statement on behalf of management Nos.2, 3 & 5 and approached the Hon'ble
High Court by filing WP(C) No. 31790/2014 for Police protection to the buses
covered under Ext. W1 series, which is named as NTP. This reinforced the
workmen's contention that the bus services were a single establishment
rather than distinct legal entities.
b) Ext.W14, the letter dated 15.06.1994 issued from Manikandan Bus Service to
Sri. Murukesan S/o Sri. P.K. Krishnan, the 1st workman in the dispute, shows
that he is working as a driver in the management as on the date of Ext.W14.
The Tribunal reasoned that, except for Sri. Ravi, the other workmen failed to
provide documentary proof to establish their exact date of entry into service.
However, the management admitted that Sri. Rathinakumar, Sri. M.
Kandaswami, and Sri. Chandran worked in Manikandan Bus Service until
6.1.2005, and Sri. Aravindan worked in Ram Reni Transport until 12.10.2010.
Additionally, Ext.W14, dated 15.6.1994, served as uncontroverted
documentary evidence disproving the management's claim regarding
WP(C) NO. 2163 OF 2018 &
WP(C) NO. 1125 OF 2020 14 2025:KER:25352
Sri. Murukesan's service. Since the management did not specify the date of
entry for workmen Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 6 in the dispute, the court accepted
15.06.1994 as their date of continuous service. As for Sri. Ravi (workman No.
5), the Tribunal concluded that he had continuous service from 2005 onwards
based on the available records.
c) For the issue of whether there is any denial of employment to the workers
by the management, the Tribunal inferred that the workmen had not
voluntarily resigned, but were unjustifiably denied employment by the
management. It reasoned that while the management claimed the workers
had resigned, they failed to provide concrete evidence such as resignation
letters, settlements, or termination records. Instead, they relied on refund
applications for the Motor Transport Welfare Fund, EPF settlements, and
gratuity applications. However, the Tribunal held that these documents alone
could not prove termination. Since the workmen had established that they
worked for more than 240 days, the burden of proof shifted to the
management to show lawful termination. The management failed to produce
key documents like attendance registers, wage records, and service records.
Citing Director, Fisheries Terminal Division v. Bhikubhai Meghajibhai
Chavda [2010 AIR SC 1236], the Tribunal drew an adverse inference against
WP(C) NO. 2163 OF 2018 &
WP(C) NO. 1125 OF 2020 15 2025:KER:25352
the management for withholding evidence. Moreover, MW1's cross-
examination revealed that no show-cause notices or inquiries were conducted
before termination.
d) Based on these findings, the Tribunal concluded that workmen Nos. 1, 2, 3,
4, and 6 had continuous service since 15.06.1994, and workman No. 5 (Sri.
Ravi) since 2005. Their termination did not comply with the Industrial
Disputes Act, rendering it unjustifiable.
e) For the grant of reliefs, the Tribunal held that the workers were denied
employment without any valid justification, making them ordinarily entitled
to reinstatement with back wages. However, considering the current strained
relationship between the management and workers and the fact that some
buses had already been transferred to third parties, reinstatement was
deemed impractical. To balance the interests of both sides, the Tribunal
decided to grant monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back
wages. It determined Rs. 1,75,000/- each for workmen Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6, and
Rs. 75,000/- for workman No. 5 (Sri. Ravi) as fair compensation. However, to
ensure fairness, the Tribunal provided an alternative, if the management
refuses to pay the compensation, the workmen will be entitled to
reinstatement with continuity of service and 35% of back wages, calculated
WP(C) NO. 2163 OF 2018 &
WP(C) NO. 1125 OF 2020 16 2025:KER:25352
based on their last drawn salary. Additionally, the Tribunal held that all five
management entities (Nos. 1 to 5) are jointly and severally liable to comply
with the award, ensuring the workers' rights are effectively upheld.
15. In Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan and Ors. [1963 SCC Online SC
24], it was noted that a finding of fact based on no evidence constitutes an
error of law correctable by a writ of certiorari. However, the adequacy of
evidence and inference drawn from it falls within the tribunal's exclusive
jurisdiction and cannot be challenged in writ courts. In Ajay Singh v.
Khacheru and Ors. (MANU/SC/0008/2025), it was held that findings can be set
aside if unsupported by evidence or legally perverse. Mukand Ltd. v. Mukand
Staff and Officers' Association [(2004) 10 SCC 460] reinforced that findings
through evidence appreciation by inferior tribunals cannot be questioned in
writ proceedings. Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. v. State of Saurashtra
[AIR 1957 SC 264 = MANU/SC/0071/1956] clarified that a tribunal's factual
decisions are challengeable under Article 226 only if completely unsupported
by evidence. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Sree Rama Rao [AIR 1963 SC
1723] it is stated that if some evidence supports a conclusion, the High Court
should not second-guess that evidence in a writ petition. Rattan Enterprises
and Ors v. State of Odisha and Ors (MANU/OR/0625/2023) case emphasized
WP(C) NO. 2163 OF 2018 &
WP(C) NO. 1125 OF 2020 17 2025:KER:25352
that "no evidence" includes scenarios where the evidence as a whole fails to
support the tribunal's finding. Management of Madurantakam Coop. Sugar
Mills Ltd., Vs. S. Viswanathan [(2005) 3 SCC 193] reinforced that writ courts
should not delve into factual disputes unless findings are deemed perverse or
lacking legal evidentiary support. The High Court cannot act as an appellate
authority over the decisions of the Tribunal unless the findings are patently
perverse. Absent such conditions, judicial restraint remains the appropriate
course.
16. In the instant case, the management failed to produce essential
documents such as resignation letters or termination records, relying instead
on insufficient refund applications. Cross-examination of the management
witness revealed a lack of due process in the termination. It is to be noted
that the Tribunal had, after an overall appreciation of the evidence in the
case, found that the persons manning the management were all common and
were close relatives. It was also found, based on the photographs produced in
a case filed by the Sri. P. Ramaswamy that all the bus services were running in
the name of NTP which further strengthened the case of the workers that all
the buses were being run by the same management though under different
persons.
WP(C) NO. 2163 OF 2018 &
WP(C) NO. 1125 OF 2020 18 2025:KER:25352
17. The Industrial Disputes Tribunal based its decision on evidence, both
oral and documentary proof, including the admissions made by the
management witnesses. Under such circumstances, this cannot be treated as a
case of total lack of evidence or "no evidence." as contended by the
petitioners. Given the above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the
common award passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, W.P.(C) No.2163 of 2018
fails, and the same is dismissed.
18. W.P.(C) No.1125 of 2020 is filed by the Managing Partner of Ram Reni
Transport contending that the joint application form for transfer of the
permit was sanctioned by Ext.P2 decision of the Regional Transport Authority,
Palakkad, dated 13.07.2016, based on the application of the petitioners and
therefore the second petitioner is entitled to get the transfer of permit
endorsed in his name. The prayer in the writ petition is to direct the second
respondent to endorse the transfer as aforesaid subject to the outcome of W.P.
(C) No.2163/2018, which stands dismissed by this judgment. No interim order
has been passed in this writ petition.
19. This Court as per Ext.P3 judgment disposed of W.P.(C) No.39615 of
2015 through its judgment dated 16.11.2016 held as follows:
"The Industrial Tribual shall dispose O.A.1 of 2025 on or before
WP(C) NO. 2163 OF 2018 &
WP(C) NO. 1125 OF 2020 19 2025:KER:25352
31.1.2017. In the meanwhile, the respondents 5 to 9 shall not
transfer vehicles bearing Nos.KL-8 1484, KL 8 X1683, KL 10 Q 2005
and KL 13 H 7272. It is made clear that direction as above will not
have an impact on buses already transferred by changing
ownerships particulars in R.C.book and it would continue to
operate only against such non-transfered vehicle which stands in
the name of the respondents 5 to 9 as on today. The transfer
already effected would be subject to the outcome of OA as already
observed by this court in Ext.P4 judgment. The first and second
respondent shall ensure that this order is complied. It is made
clear that if the vehicles have been already transferred prior to
this judgment, the transferee is permitted to use the vehicles
subject to the right any available to proceed against the vehicle
based on the outcome of the award in O.A 1 of 2015 as ordered by
this court in Ext.P4 judgment."
20. Since I have already upheld the award of the Industrial Tribunal and
since Ext.P4 judgment in W.P.(C) No.1125 of 2020 made it clear that the
transfer will be subject to the outcome of the award, it will be open to the
WP(C) NO. 2163 OF 2018 &
WP(C) NO. 1125 OF 2020 20 2025:KER:25352
petitioners to work out their remedies accordingly. Nothing remains to be
considered in this writ petition as the prayer is to endorse the transfer subject
to the orders in W.P.(C) No.2163/2018. W.P.(C) No.1125 of 2020 is closed as
above.
Sd/-
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
JUDGE
DMR/-
WP(C) NO. 2163 OF 2018 &
WP(C) NO. 1125 OF 2020 21 2025:KER:25352
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1125/2020
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS
A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
EXHIBIT P1 12.05.2015 IN WPC NO.14213 OF 2015.
A TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 13.07.2016 IN
EXHIBIT P2
ADDITIONAL SUPPLEMENTARY ITEM NO.170.
A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
EXHIBIT P3 16.11.2016 IN WPC NO.39615 OF 2015.
A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
EXHIBIT P4 10.03.2017 IN RP NO.242 OF 2017.
A TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED
06.11.2017 IN OA ID NO.01/2015 OF
EXHIBIT P5
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD.
A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
04.10.2018 IN IA NO.3052/2018 IN WPC NO.
2163/2018.
EXHIBIT P6
// TRUE COPY //
P.A. TO JUDGE
WP(C) NO. 2163 OF 2018 &
WP(C) NO. 1125 OF 2020 22 2025:KER:25352
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2163/2018
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS
TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED
21.01.2015 FILED BY RESPONDENTS 1 TO 6
EXHIBIT P1 BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL,
PALAKKAD.
TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT DATED 13.04.2016
EXHIBIT P2 FILED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT.
TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF
OF THE 1ST PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 7
EXHIBIT P3
TO 9.
TRUE COPY OF AWARD DATED 06.11.2017 IN
O.A.(ID)NO.1/2015 PASSED BY THE
EXHIBIT P4
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 03.11.2018
ISSUED BY THE PROPRIETOR OF ANNAMALAI
FIBRES.
// TRUE COPY //
P.A. TO JUDGE
