IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP No. 9964 of 2002(J)
1. M.V.GOPINATHAN,EWS 716,GANDHINAGAR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER(WCC)
... Respondent
2. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER GR.I,
3. ]HOTEL YUVARANI,RE4PRESENTED BY ITS
For Petitioner :SRI.H.B.SHENOY
For Respondent :SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :19/03/2008
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
=======================
O.P. No. 9964 of 2002 (J)
=======================
Dated this the 19th day of March, 2008
JUDGMENT
The petitioner was a workman employed by the 3rd
respondent in his hotel. He was suspended pending enquiry. He
claimed subsistence allowance for various periods. In respect of
the period from 27.2.91 to 5.8.93, Ext. P3 order has been
passed by the 1st respondent restricting the claim of the
petitioner for subsistence allowance only to the period from
27.6.92 to 27.7.92. This is on the basis that for the balance
period the petitioner was gainfully employed elsewhere.
Apparently this finding was entered on the basis of the deposition
of a person who had allegedly employed the petitioner.
According to the petitioner, that person was not competent to
give evidence on behalf of the said employer and there was no
acceptable proof to the effect that the petitioner was employed
elsewhere. He also submits that while calculating wages, the
food allowance to which the petitioner was eligible was not taken
into account.
O.P. No. 9964/2002/J -2-
2. I am not going into the merits of the contentions of
the parties since I am inclined to remand the matter for violation
of principles of natural justice. While passing Ext.P3 order,
originally a report was forwarded by the 2nd respondent to the
1st respondent in the matter, which was set aside and the matter
was remitted back to the 2nd respondent for fresh report. It is
on the basis of the fresh report that Ext.P3 order has been
passed. The petitioner raises a contention that petitioner has not
been served with a copy of that report, without which he could
not have effectively presented his case before the 1st
respondent.
3. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner as also the
counsel for the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent could not
refute the averment of the petitioner that petitioner was not
given a copy of the report based on which Ext.P3 order has been
passed. That being so, Ext.P3 is clearly in violation of natural
justice. Accordingly, Ext.P3 is quashed. The 1st respondent is
directed to pass fresh orders in the matter after giving a copy of
the report of the 2nd respondent on which Ext. P3 order has
been passed, to the petitioner and after hearing both sides
O.P. No. 9964/2002/J -3-
afresh. Fresh orders shall be passed within 2 months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The original petition is disposed of as above.
S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
jp