IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 232 of 2005(C)
1. KERALA FOREST EVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM.
... Respondent
2. THE GENERAL SECRETARY,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.G.ARUN
For Respondent :SRI.C.S.MANILAL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :08/04/2010
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C)No.232 of 2005
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 8th day of April, 2010
J U D G M E N T
This writ petition is filed by the management in I.D.
No.139/95 before the Labour Court, Kollam. Challenging
Ext.P4 award passed by the Labour Court in that I.D. the
issues referred for adjudication were:
1. Justifiability of the action of management in having
suspended Sri. Chacko Kurian w.e.f. 4.7.1994.
2. Reimbursement of Sri. Chacko Kurian in supervision
post.
3. Legality of the action of Management in having dismissed
Sri. Chacko Kurian during the period of conciliation.
2. It appears that before dismissing the workman no
enquiry was conducted. But relying on some other enquiry
conducted in respect of some other misconduct the
management wanted to sustain the punishment. The
Labour Court found that in respect of the particular charge
for which the workman was punished there was no enquiry
at all, not even a show cause notice. Labour Court further
found that at the time of dismissal of the workman involved
W.P.(C)No.232 of 2005
-2-
an industrial dispute was pending in respect of a claim of
the workman for a supervisory post. Therefore the Labour
Court found that the dismissal is violative of Section 33 (1)
(b) of the I.D. Act, in so far as before imposing the
punishment of dismissal, approval of the appropriate
authority had not been obtained. On these grounds the
Labour Court found that the dismissal was bad and passed
the award on the following terms:
1. The dismissal of the workman from service as per order
dated 20.10.1994 is set aside.
2. The management is directed to reinstate the workman in
the post of watcher/worker in which he was working with
60% of the backwages for the period in which he has
been kept out of service.
3. The workman will be entitled to continuity in service for
the period in which he was kept out of service.
3. The management is challenging that award in this
writ petition. According to the management, the workman
was validly dismissed from service for misconduct. The
counsel for the 2nd respondent would support the impugned
award.
4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.
W.P.(C)No.232 of 2005
-3-
5. From a reading of the award it is abundantly clear
that, for imposing the punishment of dismissal from service
no enquiry was conducted and the earlier enquiry was
concluded by imposing a punishment of imposition of
punishment of Rs.280/-. After having imposed such a
punishment, the management could not have dismissed the
workman on the same set of facts. As far as the allegations
on which the workman was dismissed, no enquiry was
conducted. The management could have at least adduced
evidence before the Labour Court to prove the misconduct
of the workman. No attempt is seen made by the
management in that direction also. Added to that, the
dismissal was effected without obtaining prior approval as
contemplated under Section 33 (1) (b). As such I do not
find anything wrong with the conclusion of the Labour
Court that dismissal of the workman is unsustainable. But I
find that, the workman had refused to join duty despite the
management giving him an opportunity to do so, in a post
other than the supervisory post, which has been specifically
W.P.(C)No.232 of 2005
-4-
found by the Labour Court also. Taking into account, the
entire facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the
award of 50% backwages is too harsh on the management.
Accordingly I modify Ext.P4 award by limiting backwages to
25% instead of 50%. In all other respects the award would
stand.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
S. SIRI JAGAN
JUDGE
shg/