IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 18613 of 2009(V)
1. V.NATARAJAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,
... Respondent
2. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,
3. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.S.RAMESH KUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :24/07/2009
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = =
W.P.(C). No. 18613 OF 2009
= = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = =
Dated this the 24th day of July 2009.
JUDGMENT
Disciplinary proceedings were taken against the petitioner
while he was in the service of the State Bank of Travancore for
unauthorized absence from duty. He was discharged from the
service of the Bank with superannuation benefits and without
disqualification for future employment.
2. Since the petitioner was a workman, he availed the
remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act. The validity of the
proceedings taken against him was referred as an issue and
numbered as ID 20/2007 before the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ernakulam. Petitioner
filed Ext.P1 claim petition. Respondents filed written statement
and the petitioner filed reply as well. But the petitioner and
Counsel were not present when the matter was posted for
evidence and hence by Ext.P4, the Tribunal passed an ex parte
award finding that the action of the management in discharging
the workman from the services of the State Bank of Travancore
W.P.(C). No. 18613 OF 2009
2
was legal and justified. Ext.P4 has been challenged in this writ
petition.
3. A statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents
1 and 2. It is contended therein that the petitioner has been
guilty of negligence and latches in prosecuting the case before
the Enquiry Officer and the Labour Court.
4. I heard learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Ramesh
Kumar and Mr.P.Ramakrishnan, learned Counsel for the
respondents. It is true that there has been latches on the part of
the petitioner in prosecuting his claim before the Labour Court.
But on an over all appreciation of the facts and circumstances
and considering the fact the petitioner who has been discharged
from service has been fighting a battle for quite some years now,
I am of the view that it is appropriate that he may be granted an
opportunity to contest his case with merits. I heard
Mr. Ramakrishnan on this aspect also.
5. In the result, Ext.P4 is set aside and ID No.20/2007 is
restored to the file of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ernakulam. The petitioner shall not
W.P.(C). No. 18613 OF 2009
3
seek adjournment unnecessarily but shall extend maximum
co-operation for an early disposal of the case. The court below
shall pass a revised award in ID No.20/2007 within 4 months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
(V.GIRI)
JUDGE
kkms/