The Group Manager v. The President

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/29TH POUSHA, 1936 WP(C).No. 8143 of 2012 (P) --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN ID 31/2010 of INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD PETITIONER(S):

-------------------------- THE GROUP MANAGER AGED 38 YEARS HARRISONS MALAYALAM LIMITED, MOOPLY VALLEY ESTATE KARIKULAM, PALAPILLY P.O.

THRISSUR - 680304 BY ADVS.SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI RESPONDENT(S):

----------------------------

1. THE PRESIDENT KERALA STATE ESTATE AND PLANTATIN WORKERS UNION(TRADE UNION CENTRE OF INDIA)HARRISONS MALAYALAM LIMITED PALAPILLY, AROMA BUILDING II FLOUR, PUTHUKAD-680301

2. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD, O/O.THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, OLAVAKKODE PALAKKAD-678002 R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BIJU MEENATTOOR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 8143 of 2012 (P) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRTY FILE WITH REPORT DTD 28/6/2007, EXT.P2:- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD 23/7/2009 FILED BY TH IST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, EXT.P3:- TRUE COPY OF THE WIRTTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER, BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD 18/12/2010 EXT.P4:- TRUE COPY OF PERLIMINARY ORDER DTD 21/1/2012 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE JJJ

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No. 8143 of 2012 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of January, 2015

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner, the Management in an industrial dispute, is aggrieved with Ext.P4 Order of the Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad, wherein the Industrial Tribunal, having set aside the enquiry as one held in violation of the principles of natural justice, found that there would be no purpose served in permitting the management to adduce evidence to substantiate the charge, for reason that the charges itself can be found to be unsustainable. 2.

It is not disputed that the management had made a request in the written statement itself, for permission to adduce evidence to prove the misconduct, in the event of the Tribunal finding the enquiry to be defective. Though considerable arguments were addressed with respect to the sustainability of the charges, this Court at this stage is not inclined to go into the same, especially since the matter

W.P.(C) No.8143/2012 -2would have to be considered by the Industrial Tribunal, after proper adjudication.

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Bharat Forge Company Limited v. A.B.Zodge & Another - 1996 II LLJ 643 to contend that on the enquiry being found to be defective, whatever be the grounds on which such finding is entered, the management necessarily has to be afforded opportunity for adducing evidence; provided it has been sought for at the first opportunity. In the present case, there is no dispute that in the written statement itself the management had sought for opportunity to adduce evidence. The Tribunal, while considering the preliminary issue, ought not to have looked at the charges and found that they are unsustainable, especially since that could have been done after the evidence was adduced by the Management.

4.

In such circumstances, Ext.P4 Order, insofar as the finding that the charges were unsustainable and the

W.P.(C) No.8143/2012 -3finding that there would be no purpose in permitting the management to adduce evidence, is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall expedite the matter and dispose of the matter finally within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

5.

It is made clear that this Court has not looked at the sustainability of the preliminary order, which the management would be free to challenge at the time when the original award is challenged and this Court also has not looked at the maintainability of the charges, which the Labour Court would be entitled to look into, at the time of the final disposal.

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE jjj