High Court Kerala High Court

B.Sasikumar vs M.K.Devadas on 22 February, 2008

Kerala High Court
B.Sasikumar vs M.K.Devadas on 22 February, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 7225 of 2005(I)


1. B.SASIKUMAR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. M.K.DEVADAS,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.RAVINDRAN (SR.)

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :22/02/2008

 O R D E R
                         S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
                 ------------------------------------
                    W.P.(C)No.7225 OF 2005
              ----------------------------------------
              Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2008

                            JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the management in I.D. No.80/2003 before

the Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad. In that I.D., the Tribunal

passed Ext.P14 award, whereby the workman involved was

directed to be reinstated with continuity of service and

backwages. The petitioner submits that it is an ex-parte award

and the petitioner could not take part in the proceedings only

because of the reasons mentioned in paragraph 9 of the writ

petition. The petitioner therefore seeks quashing of Ext.P14 and

a direction to the Tribunal to re-adjudicate the dispute after

affording the petitioner an opportunity to adduce evidence.

2. The learned counsel for the workman stoutly opposes

the prayer of the petitioner. He points out that the petitioner had

in fact appeared before the Tribunal and it is only from the stage

of evidence the management remained absent and was declared

ex-parte. He also submits that the reasons stated in paragraph 9

of the writ petition are not at all convincing.

W.P.(c) No.7225/05 2

2. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.

When it was pointed out to the counsel for the petitioner that

the reasons stated in paragraph 9 of the writ petition are not

convincing, he prayed that he may given another opportunity

to contest on merits at least on terms. Taking a lenient view,

I feel that the petitioner can be given another opportunity to

adduce the matter on merits before the Tribunal, if he pays

costs of the workman.

Accordingly, I quash Ext.P14 award and direct the

Tribunal to re-adjudicate the dispute after affording both sides

opportunity to adduce evidence. ‘Evidence’ means only those

evidence which are permissible under law. This shall be on

condition that the petitioner pays an amount of Rs.5,000/- as

costs to the 1st respondent workman within two weeks from

today. Since the industrial dispute is of the year of 2003, the

Tribunal shall pass final award in the industrial dispute within

four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
Acd

W.P.(c) No.7225/05 3