IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 29094 of 2009(F)
1. METROPOLITAN ENGINEERING CO. LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
2. THE LABOUR COURT KOLLAM.
... Respondent
1. SRI. R.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR,
For Petitioner :SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.K.B.PRADEEP
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :27/10/2009
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W. P (C) No. 29094 of 2009
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 27th October, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
This is the second time the petitioner is approaching this Court
to set aside ex parte award passed by the Labour Court, Kollam in
I.D.No. 13/2007. Earlier, an ex parte award passed in that I.D was set
aside by me by Ext. P5 order on condition that the petitioner pays an
amount of Rs. 7500/- as costs to the workman on the first posting date
before the Labour Court after remand.. The Labour Court chose to
issue notice to the petitioner management, which was returned
unclaimed, which was treated as refusal to accept notice and the
Labour Court passed Ext. P7 ex parte award again. The petitioner
challenges Ext. P7 award in this writ petition.
2. According to the petitioner, the notice did not reach the
petitioner insofar as the notice was in the address of the
establishment which was closed. He further points out that for
implementing the directions in the impugned award, a claim petition
was filed by the workman as C.P. No. 25/2009, in which summons
was issued to the petitioner in the correct address. According to the
petitioner, the fact that the establishment was closed was known to
the workman as well as the Labour Court and therefore the Labour
Court should have issued notice in the correct address as done in Ext.
P6 summons in C.P.No. 25/2009. The petitioner therefore seeks the
following reliefs:
“(i) Call for the records of the case leading to Ext. P7 award of
the 2nd respondent in I.D.No. 13/2007 and to quash the same by
the issue of a writ of certiorari;
(ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to consider the
matter afresh and in accordance with law;
(iii) to issue an ad interim order staying the operation and
W.P.C. No. 29094/09 -: 2 :-
implementation of Ext. P7 award of the 2nd respondent in I.D.No.
13/200, pending disposal of the writ petition.”
3. The workman stoutly opposes the prayers of the petitioner.
According to him, nothing prevented the management from
ascertaining from the Labour Court as to the next date of posting,
which would not have been the prudent thing to do, especially when
the management had already suffered an ex parte award, which was
set aside by this Court on terms. The learned counsel for the
workman points out that the poor workman should not be made to
undergo the travails of another litigation by remanding the matter
again.
4. I have considered the arguments of both parties.
5. I am not at all satisfied with the conduct of the petitioner-
management. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the
workman, after remand, they had a duty to ascertain from the Labour
Court the date of the next posting of the I.D, which, admittedly, the
petitioner has not cared to do. Even then, I am not inclined to hold
that that there was any deliberate negligence on the part of the
petitioner in appearing before the Labour Court. Admittedly, the
Labour Court had chosen to issue notice in an address in which
summons could not have been served on the petitioner. Therefore, I
am inclined to set aside Ext. P7 ex parte award on that ground. But,
that can only be on terms. The petitioner would certainly have to pay
cost to the workman for the same. Accordingly, the writ petition is
disposed of with the following directions:
Ext. P7 award is quashed. As a condition for quashing the
award, the petitioner shall pay to the workman an amount of
Rs. 15,000/- including the Rs. 7500/- as costs awarded by Ext. P5
judgment. The parties shall appear before the Thiruvananthapuram
W.P.C. No. 29094/09 -: 3 :-
camp sitting of the Labour Court, Kollam on 26-11-2009, on which
date, the petitioner shall pay to the workman the costs of Rs. 15,000/-.
Thereafter, the Tribunal shall give an opportunity to both sides to
adduce evidence and pass fresh award. The fresh award shall be
passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four months
from 26-11-2009. If the petitioner does not pay the amount of Rs.
15,000/-, the petitioner would not be entitled to the benefit of this
judgment and the writ petition would stand dismissed.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/