IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2008 / 11TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 22589 of 2008(L) -------------------------- ID.13/2007 of LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------ METROPOLITAN ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD P.B.NO.6, WEST, THAMPANOOR, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY MR.JOSMON, M.D. MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA STATE INDUSTRIES ENTERPRISES LTD, WHO IS HOLDING ADDITIIONAL CHARGE. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.ANIL D. NAIR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SRI.R.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR SREEPADMAM, EDAKKODU, NEMOM.PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-20 2. THE LABOUR COURT , KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.PRADEEP FOR R1 GOVT. PLEADER SMT. N. SUDHA DEVI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.N. 22589/2008. ------------------------------------------------------------------ EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT. 6-9-2003. EXT.P2 NOTICE DT. 29-9-2003. EXT.P3 TERMINATION ORDER DT. 9-10-2003. EXT.P4 AWARD IN I.D.NO. 13/2007. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: ------------------------------------- EXT.R1(a) NOTICE DT. 29-3-2008. EXT.R1(b) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 22589 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 2nd September, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the management in I.D.No. 13/2007 before the Labour Court, Kollam. They are challenging Ext. P4 award passed by the Labour Court in that I.D, wherein the termination from service of the 1st respondent-workman was declared illegal and the management was directed to give the workman all service benefits from the date of his suspension with continuity of service as if no termination had taken place. The petitioner's contention is that although the petitioner had engaged a lawyer for contesting the matter, due to some default on his part, he did not appear before the court as a result of which an ex parte award came to be passed. The petitioner therefore seeks a chance to contest the matter on merits. 2. This is stoutly opposed by the counsel for the 1st respondent. He would submit that there is no bona fides whatsoever in the contention of the petitioner in the writ petition for non-appearance before the Labour Court. 3. After considering the rival contentions, I am satisfied that despite the default on the part of the petitioner in properly contesting the I.D., the petitioner should be given another opportunity to contest the matter on merits. But, the same shall only be on terms. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: Ext. P4 award is quashed. The 2nd respondent is directed to re- adjudicate the I.D after affording an opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence. The petitioner shall pay to the 1st respondent an amount of Rs. 7500/- as costs of this litigation, which shall be paid on W.P.C. No. 22589/08. -: 2 :- the first posting before the Labour Court after this remand. The I.D shall be finally disposed of within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/