IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 36149 of 2008(C)
1. THE GENERAL SECRETARY
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL,IDUKKI
... Respondent
2. THE MANAGER,
For Petitioner :SMT.A.K.PREETHA
For Respondent :SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :04/02/2009
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W. P (C) No. 36149 of 2008
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 4th February, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner challenges Ext. P1 award passed by the Industrial
Tribunal, Idukki in I.D.No. 73/2006. The petitioner is the Union in
that I.D. The issue referred for adjudication was:
“Whether the dismissal of Shri. Jnanamuthu, C.R.No. 5903
and Shri. Velu, C.R.No. 2241 by the management of Harrisons
Malayalam Ltd., Moongalar estate is justifiable? If not what are
the relief they are entitled to.”
Since the dismissal of the workmen was after conducting an enquiry,
the Tribunal considered the validity of the enquiry as a preliminary
point and found that the enquiry was conducted validly and properly.
Thereafter, the Tribunal considered whether the findings are
supported by evidence on record. The Tribunal found that also in
favour of the management. Since the misconducts proved were
serious enough to warrant the punishment imposed by the
management, the Tribunal upheld the punishment also and held that
the workmen are not entitled to any relief. That award is under
challenge before me.
2. The challenge is only on the ground that findings are not
supported by evidence. A contention is raised before me to the
effect that the Tribunal had not considered the evidence properly as is
clear from the award, wherein there is no discussion of the evidence
adduced in the enquiry. In the circumstances, I directed the
petitioner to produce the copy of the enquiry proceedings . Pursuant
thereto, the petitioner has produced a copy of the enquiry file as
produced before the Tribunal. I have gone through the entire enquiry
proceedings including the evidence adduced. Five witnesses were
examined by the management including the victim of the assault by
W.P.C. No. 36149/2008. -: 2 :-
the workman which was the charge against the workmen. All of them
described in graphic detail the entire incident as seen by them.
Evidence regarding treatment of the victim in hospital was also
produced. The workmen were found guilty on the basis of such
cogent evidence of eye witnesses to the entire incident. In spite of
rigorous cross examination of the witnesses the evidence of the
witnesses could not be shaken. The workmen did not adduce any
evidence in defence. It is on the basis of that evidence, the enquiry
officer had found the petitioners guilty of the misconducts, which
finding was upheld by the Tribunal in the award. As such, I do not
find any merit in the contention that the findings are in any way
perverse. On the other hand, I am of opinion that there was sufficient
positive evidence on record to show that the workmen were guilty of
the misconducts alleged against them. Therefore, I do not find any
infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal that the findings of the
enquiry officer are supported by evidence on record.
3. The misconducts involve assaulting and injuring a superior
officer. That certainly qualifies for the extreme punishment of
dismissal from service, which only has been imposed on the
workmen. As such, there is no infirmity in the award. Accordingly,
the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/
[True copy]
P.S to Judge.