IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH JANUARY 2008 / 20TH POUSHA 1929 OP.No. 8452 of 2002(F) ---------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ THE MANAGER, SENTINAL ROCK ESTATE, VELLARMALA P.O., MEPPADI. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.JOHN MATHAI K. SMT.PRIYA MAHESH SMT.PRIYA MANJOORAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE REGIONAL SECRETARY, ESTATE STAFF UNION OF SOUTH INDIA, KALPETTA NORTH. 2. P.J. FERNANDEZ, VALLAKKARI LANE, PINANGUDE ROA, KALPETTA. 3. LABOUR COURT, * KANNUR. (ADDRESS OF R3 CORRECTED AS PER ORDER DT. 17.3.03 IN CMP 14649/03) BY ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.T.B.REMANI SRI.C.ANILKUMAR THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P. NO. 8452/2002/F ORDER ON CMP NO.15094/2002 IN OP NO.8452/2002 DISMISSED SD/- 10.1.2008. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE APPENDIX EXT. P1: COY OF THE AWARD DATED 31.3.01 PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, KANNUR IN ID 33/97. EXT. P2: COPY OF LETTER DATED 5.10.95 SEND BY HARRISONS MALAYALAM LTD TO PETITIONER. EXT. P3: COPY OF BILL DATED 5.10.95 ISSUED BY THE HARRISONS MALAYALAM LTD TO ASIA TEA ENTERPRISES. EXT. P4: COPY OF LETTER DATED 10.10.95 ISSUED BY SURESH DAVID TO THE PETITIONER. EXT. P5: COPY OF STATEMENT GIVEN BY SURESH DAVID, REPRESENTATIVE OF ASIA TEA ENTERPRISES. EXT. P6: COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF JOINT STATEMENT OF CLEANER AND DRIVER OF THE LORRY. EXT. P7: COPY OF LETTER DATED 10.10.95 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO ASIA TEA ENTERPRISES. EXT. P8: COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 1.10.95 ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT. P9: COPY OF EXPLANATION DT.18.10.95 GIVEN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. EXT. P10: COPY OF SUSPENSION ORDER DATED 25.10.95 ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT. P11: COPY OF CHARGE SHEET DATED 1.11.95 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT. P12: COPY OF CLAIM STATEMENT DATED 26.9.97 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT. P13: COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT. OP.No. 8452/2002/F EXT. P14: COPY OF ARGUMENT NOTE FILED BY COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER IN ID 33/97 BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT. P15: COPY OF OFFICE ORDER DATED 23.11.2001 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE JP S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ======================= O.P. No. 8452 of 2002(F) ======================= Dated this the 10th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT The management in ID No.33/97 is challenging Ext.P1 award passed by the Labour Court, Kannur in that ID. The issues referred for adjudication was: "1. Whether the dismissal of Sri.P.J.Fernandez Assistant Factory Officer from Sentinal Rock Estate by the management is justifiable or not? 2. If not, the benefits for which he is entitled to?" 2. The workman was dismissed after conducting an enquiry. The Labour Court found the enquiry to be vitiated. Management was given fresh opportunity to adduce evidence. The management examined 4 witnesses and proved 12 documents. The workman did not adduce any oral evidence but W1 to W32 were marked on his side. After assessing evidence so adduced, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the management has not proved the misconducts alleged against the workman. Accordingly, the workman was directed to be O.P. No. 8452/2002/F -2- reinstated with continuity of service and all service benefits with full backwages with interest, promotion, bonus, gratuity etc. The management is challenging the findings of the Labour Court on the ground that the findings are perverse. 3. The case against the workman was as follows: On the particular day he was in charge of loading tea waste in a lorry, for consigning the same to the buyer. The purchase order was for 5000/- Kgs. The workman loaded 921.50 Kgs. of the tea waste in excess. After loading, the superior officer, having become suspicious about the quantity of tea waste loaded in the lorry, issued instructions not to sign the Central Excise documents till the manager who was not in station comes back. The manager came back late in the night and he was appraised of the situation. The manager inspected the load the next day and it was found that the load consisted of excess tea waste. The representative of the purchaser who came to take the load gave a written statement to the effect that he had paid an amount of Rs.6,300/- to the workman for the excess tea loaded. It is based on these allegations that the enquiry was conducted and the workman was dismissed from service. The Labour Court O.P. No. 8452/2002/F -3- examined the evidence and entered his findings in the award absorbing the workman of the charges. From a reading of the award, I find that the Labour Court was actually carried away the fact that one of the witnesses who gave evidence against the workman was later promoted as factory officer and another witness who had already left service of the management had taken the trouble of giving evidence on behalf of the management. The Labour Court also picked imaginary holes in the evidence of the management by pointing out certain alleged discrepancies in the evidences of two witnesses. On overall reading of the award I find that the Labour Court assessed the evidence as in a criminal case. It is settled law that the standard of proof required for proving mis-conducts in Labour Matters is not that in a criminal case and not even that in a civil case in a court. Ordinary rules of evidence are not applicable to such proceedings. Any probative material would be good evidence and even hearsay evidence would be good evidence. From a reading of Ext.P1 award, I do not find that the Labour Court has assessed the evidence as he should have done in an industrial dispute. Therefore, I am satisfied that the matter needs to be O.P. No. 8452/2002/F -4- reconsidered by the Labour Court in its correct perspective in the light of the observations made in this judgment. Accordingly, Ext.P1 award is quashed and the Labour Court is directed to re- adjudicate the dispute in accordance with law and pass a fresh award. The Labour Court shall pass fresh award within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is pointed out by the counsel for the management that the post of the presiding officer of the Labour Court is lying vacant. Therefore, if the presiding officer is not appointed by the time the certified copy of this judgment is received by the Labour Court, four months period shall run from the date when the new presiding officer takes charge. This original petition is disposed of as above. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE jp