IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 17TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 9175 of 2005(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SREEKUMAR K., THERIYIL HOUSE, KUNNANADU, POOZHANADU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.T.D.C. LTD., MASCOT SQUARE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.B.GOPAKUMAR, SC, K.T.D.C. FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/02/2009, THE COURT, ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C. NO. 9175/2005. ------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF CLAIM STATEMENT. EXT.P2 MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DT. 28-11-2004. EXT.P3 AWARD IN I.D.NO. 109/98 DT. 6-12-2004. EXT.P4 AWARD DT. 9-4-2003 IN I.D.NO. 49/1999. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 9175 of 2005 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 6th February, 2009. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the workman involved in I.D.No. 109/1998 before the Labour Court, Kollam. He is challenging Ext. P3 award passed by the Labour Court in that industrial dispute on 6-12-2004. That was an ex parte award. The award says that when the matter came up for trial, the workman was not present and his counsel reported no instructions. Therefore, the matter was taken up for award and Ext. P3 award was passed rejecting the contentions of the workman and holding that he is not entitled to any relief in the I.D. 2. According to the petitioner, as evidenced by Ext. P2 medical certificate, from 28-11-2004 to 12-12-2004, he was laid up with Viral Hepatitis, as a result of which he could not appear before the Labour Court or contact his advocate, which resulted in his absence on the date when the matter came up before the Labour Court. 3. Counsel for the management opposes the contentions of the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, Ext. P2 certificate is dated 28-11-2004 and nothing prevented the petitioner from approaching the Labour Court with an application to set aside the ex parte award, producing Ext. P2 along with the same within the time stipulated. As such, according to the counsel for the management, the petitioner has not properly explained his laches and therefore the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Although, there is some merit in the contention of the management, I am of opinion that in view of the fact that the petitioner has approached this Court within three months from the date of the award, the petitioner should be given another opportunity to contest the matter on merits, despite his laches in the matter. This is especially so when there is no statement in the award that the petitioner was consistently absent. Further, Ext. P2 medical W.P.C. No. 9175/2005 -: 2 :- certificate shows that the petitioner was laid up at the relevant time. Accordingly, Ext. P3 award is set aside and the Labour Court is directed to re-adjudicate the industrial dispute, after affording an opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence and hearing them. In view of the fact that the industrial dispute is of the year 1998, the Labour Court shall pass fresh award within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The parties shall appear before the Labour Court on 2-3-2009 or the immediately next sitting day of the court, if there is no sitting of the Labour Court on 2-3-2009. The parties shall co-operate with the Labour Court and adduce evidence on the date when the matter is posted for evidence without seeking any further adjournment. I make it clear that I have not considered the matter on merits and it is for the Labour Court to consider all aspects of the case in accordance with law on the basis of the evidence and contentions of the parties. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/