SREENIVASAN EMBRANDIRI Vs. KRISHNAN NAMBOODIRI
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) There are no grounds to interfere in this case. Both the lower Tribunals have found that the building occupied by the petitioner is not a hut. The cost of construction was found to be more than Rs. 750/- and the rental at the time of construction was also found to be more than Rs. 5/-. This finding is a finding of fact and it is not shown to be erroneous in law or improper.
Further the occupation by the petitioner of the building is in his capacity of a Santhikaran employed in the respondent Devaswom. As a servant of that temple and to carry out his duties as such servant he is allowed or required to occupy the building. Such an 'occupation' of a servant for the purpose of his employment is not intended to be covered by that expression in Clause.25 of S.2 of the Act. The word "occupy" has only a limited meaning. With respect, I agree with the conclusion of Iyengar J. in the case reported in 1958 KLT 543 , and hold that the occupation of the petitioner here is not independent of his obligation as a servant and as such not protected. Only independent occupations are covered by the word 'occupy' in Clause.25 of S.2 of the Act.
I dismiss the petition.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.