IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 30316 of 2004(H)
1. K.C.SADASIVAN, CODE NO.109,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MALABAR CEMENTS LTD., REP. BY ITS
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.J.JOSE
For Respondent :SRI.K.ANAND (A.201)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :03/06/2008
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.30316 OF 2004
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2008
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by Ext.P9 award passed by the Labour Court,
Kozhikode in I.D.No.52/95, the workman involved in the
industrial dispute has come with this writ petition. The issue
referred for adjudication was the validity of the dismissal of the
workman from service. Since the workman was dismissed after
conducting a domestic enquiry, the validity of the enquiry was
considered as a preliminary point and the Labour Court held that
the enquiry conducted against the workman was legally valid and
proper. Thereafter, the Tribunal went on to find whether the
findings are supported by legal evidence. The Tribunal came to
the conclusion that the evidence of MW1 to MW6 and Exts.M1 to
M13 would prove the charges leveled against the petitioner.
However, exercising powers under Section 11A of the Industrial
Disputes Act, the Labour Court interfered with the punishment
imposed on the petitioner and directed the management to
reinstate him with continuity of service but without backwages.
W.P.(c)No.30316/04 2
That is under challenge before me. As far as the validity of the
enquiry is concerned, the petitioner has not chosen to
challenge the preliminary order. The same is not even
produced before me. Therefore, I am not inclined to consider
the contentions raised in the writ petition against the
preliminary order. Regarding the question as to whether the
charges of misconduct against the workman were proved with
sufficient evidence in the enquiry, I have gone through Ext.P9
award. In the same the Labour Court has elaborately discussed
the evidence adduced before the enquiry officer and came to
the finding that the evidence of MW1 to MW6 and Exts.M1 to
M13 are sufficient to prove the charges levelled against the
workman. I do not find anything perverse in such findings,
without which I cannot interfere with those findings of fact.
2. Now the only remaining question as to whether
denial of backwages to the workman is justified in so far as the
Labour Court has interfered with the punishment and directed
reinstatement of the workman which the management has not
challenged. The charges leveled against the workman have
been narrated in the award as follows:
W.P.(c)No.30316/04 3
“On 9.4.1999 in shift, you were allotted wagon Drill
(No.7) for operation. AT about 12’O clock in the night,
Manager (Planning & Technical Services) along with
Personnel & Welfare Officer reached the site for
inspection of various operation points. It was observed
that you disappeared from the site of operation of the
drill keeping the drill working unattended. The two
officers waited there about 25 minutes waiting your return
and then they want near the drill. While approaching the
drill, they found that you were chitchatting with other two
members facing opposite to the drill at about 50 feet away
from the drill. The officers came near to your and the
following conservation took place:
W.P.(c)No.30316/04 4
I am satisfied that the same is sufficient even for imposing a
punishment of dismissal. However, since the management has
not chosen to challenge the same, I need not consider the
same. That being so, I cannot find fault with the Labour Court
in denying backwages to the workman. Therefore, I do not
find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is
dismissed.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
Acd
W.P.(c)No.30316/04 5