IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 38083 of 2007(H)
1. HIGH RANGE ESTATE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
... Petitioner
2. THE KERALA STATE ESTATE & PLANTATION
3. AKHILA KERALA PLANTATION LABOUR UNION
Vs
1. THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
... Respondent
2. MUNDAKKAYAM ESTATE (HARISONS MALAYAM LTD
For Petitioner :SRI.A.JAYASANKAR
For Respondent :SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :30/06/2008
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
==================
W.P.(C).No.38083 of 2007
==================
Dated this the 30th day of June, 2008
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners are three unions involved in I.D.Nos.84 and
85 of 2003 and 3 of 2004 before the Industrial Tribunal, Idukki.
They are challenging Ext.P1 preliminary order passed by the
Industrial Tribunal in those industrial disputes on the question of
validity of the enquiry in those disputes, wherein the issue
involved was the validity of the punishment imposed on the
workmen involved in those industrial disputes. The only
contention now urged before me by the petitioners is Ground “C”
in the writ petition which reads thus:
“C. The evidence given by the manager as MW1 before the
enquiry officer was in ‘English’. The enquiry officer himself translated
the same. Workers who are all tappers – hardly having any proficiency
in English- could never follow the language much less than their co-
worker/observer, yet another tapper. Recording deposition of the main
witness, upon which the entire case is built, in an alien undecipherable
language – so as to workers and their co-worker/observer are
concerned, amounts to violation of natural justice.”
2. It is not disputed before me that the enquiry file would
not reveal that the workers raised objection against examination
of MW1 without a translator. In fact the petitioners have no case
w.p.c.38083/07 2
that such an objection was raised before the enquiry officer at
any time. It is not disputed before me that the enquiry file on the
face of it would not prove the said contention of the petitioners.
Therefore, the only way the petitioners can prove their case is by
raising such a ground in the claim statement and adducing
evidence before the Industrial Tribunal in support of the said
contention. The petitioners did not adduce any evidence
whatsoever before the Tribunal. The questions as to whether the
manager, MW1 was examined in English, whether enquiry officer
translated the deposition in Malayalam and whether the
translation and recording of deposition were correct, are
questions of fact which have to be proved by evidence. It is not
disputed before me that the evidence of MW1 was recorded in
Malayalam. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would
assert that MW1, though a North Indian, knew Malayalam
perfectly well and he was examined in Malayalam and the
workmen with the help of their co-worker cross examined MW1 in
detail. They had also put their signature in all the pages of the
deposition of MW1 without any objection whatsoever. Further,
there is no whisper of such an allegation in the claim statement
w.p.c.38083/07 3
submitted by the petitioners. First time this contention was raised
in the argument notes submitted by the Advocate for the
petitioners before the Tribunal, for two of the petitioners. In fact,
while the enquiry officer was examined before the Tribunal,
except the question as to whether MW1 was examined in English,
no other question whatsoever was asked in this respect. The
answer to that question was that the witness does not remember.
The Tribunal in the preliminary order does not refer to such
contention raised by the petitioners. I am sure that if such a
contention was seriously raised, the Tribunal would have at least
referred to such a contention. Since this is a ground which goes
to the root of the matter in so far as that would, if proved, vitiate
the enquiry, the fact that the petitioners did not raise it at any
time before filing of the argument notes would, go to show that
there is no merit in their contention that they had any such
contention at any stage of the proceedings either before the
enquiry officer or before the Tribunal. In any event they have not
adduced any evidence whatsoever before the Tribunal to prove
such a contention raised for the first time which is not evident
from the enquiry file. I do not think that I can countenance such
w.p.c.38083/07 4
an argument in this writ petition. No other contentions are raised
before me in respect of the preliminary order. Therefore, I do
not find any merit in the challenge against Ext.P1 preliminary
order and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
///True copy///
P.A. to Judge