Jijimon.K.T. vs The Labour Court on 19 November, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 32949 of 2008(V)


1. JIJIMON.K.T., KOTTANADAN HOUSE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM.
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE MANAGER, ACCELERATED FREEZE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.N.R.CHANDRASEKHARAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI

 Dated :19/11/2008

 O R D E R
                        V.GIRI, J
                      -------------------
                   W.P.(C).32949/2008
                      --------------------
       Dated this the 19th day of November, 2008

                      JUDGMENT

Petitioner, a workman challenges Ext.P27

Preliminary Award passed by the Labour Court, Kollam,

in I.D.39/2007. The question of validity of the domestic

enquiry by the petitioner was considered by the Tribunal

of the Labour Court in the first instance and the Labour

Court has proceeded to hold as follows:-

“In view of the finding on Point Nos.1

and 2 that the domestic enquiry wherein the

Workman was found guilty of the charges

levelled in the Show Cause notice dated

26.2.2003 was legal and proper and the

finding of the Enquiry Officer therein was

supported by the evidence on record the case

is posted for consideration of the other issues

involved.”

2. Obviously, this does not preclude from

consideration, notwithstanding the finding that the

domestic enquiry is not vitiated, whether the

W.P.(C).32949/2008
2

punishment imposed on the petitioner is otherwise

sustainable or whether it is improper or

disproportionate. In other words, Labour Court has

nevertheless jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders

under Section 11A of the I.D.Act.

3. I heard Mr.N.R.Chandrasekharan, learned counsel

for the petitioner and Mr.E.K.Nandakumar for the

Management.

4. I am not inclined to consider the correctness of

Ext.P27 at this stage. If at the final stage, the Labour

Court does not interfere with the punishment imposed

by the Management, and passes an award in that

regard, it would be open to the petitioner to not only

challenge the final award but also the correctness of the

Preliminary Award. An interference by this Court when

proceedings are pending before the Labour Court

should be embarked upon only in extremely rare cases.

5. In the result, writ petition is disposed of reserving

W.P.(C).32949/2008
3

the rights of the petitioner to challenge Ext.P27, if the

need arises, after the final award is passed by the

Labour Court, Kollam, in I.D.39/2007.

V.GIRI,
Judge

mrcs