IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 8929 of 2009(I)
1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE PRESIDING OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. SRI. S. SANTHANAKRISHNAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :26/03/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
---------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 8929 of 2009
------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of March, 2009
JUDGMENT
Challenge in this writ petition is against Exhibit P5, the
preliminary order passed by the first respondent in I.D 238/2006
setting aside the domestic enquiry conducted by the petitioner
against the second respondent, the workmen concerned.
2. The first respondent considered validity of the
domestic enquiry that was conducted. After appreciating the
material on record, the Labour Court held that the enquiry was
held in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice. It is this
order which is under challenge.
3. A reading of Exhibit P5 shows that enquiry against the
workman began on 26/07/99 and on that day 11 documents were
marked by the Enquiry officer without examining anyone of the
witnesses. On the second sitting of the enquiry held on
8/09/1999, one more document was marked without examining
any witness. The 3rd sitting day was on 27/09/1999, when again
4 documents were marked without proving them through any
witness and merely at the request of the Presenting Officer. It is
W.P.(C) No. 8929/2009
2
recored that the workman was not even asked by the Enquiry
Officer whether he had any objection in marking the documents.
4. Again the Presenting Officer produced four more
documents including the alleged confession statement of the
workman and a co- accused in the criminal case, which were also
marked without examination of any witnesses. The worker had
challenged the confession statement when he was asked by the
Enquiry Officer whether he agreed with the same. All these
stages, the Enquiry Officer did not ascertain whether the
workman had any objection in marking the aforesaid documents.
On the 5th sitting day on 11/10/1999, four more documents were
produced by the Presenting Officer and without proving them
though any witness and asking workman whether he has any
objection, those documents were also marked. On the 6th sitting
held on 12/10/2009, another document,extract of S.B Account of
one Shri. A. M. Jaini, was marked without proving through
anybody and without asking workman if he has any objection. It
is found in the impugned order that at all these stages, the
Enquiry officer did not even give an opportunity to the workman
to go through the documents in order to enable enable him to
W.P.(C) No. 8929/2009
3
defend his case properly. It is in view of these facts, that the
Labour Court held that the enquiry is vitiated for violation of
principles of natural justice.
5. I am inclined to agree with the Labour Court
particularly in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in Roop
Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and others [2009(2)
SCC570],where the apex court held that the equiry held to be
invalid mainly for the reason that documents were marked
without proving the same thorough the witnesses and the
management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did
not prove the contents thereof. Facts in this case are similar to
the one dealt with by the Apex Court and for that reason also,
the finding of the Labour Court cannot be faulted. I am not
satisfied that the writ petitioner is entitled to seek any relief in
this writ petition.
Writ petition fails and hence it is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
scm