IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2009 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 8929 of 2009(I) -------------------------------- ID.238/2006 of LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER : ----------------------- STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, ZONAL OFFICE, PANAMPALLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN 682 036 BY ADV. SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI, SENIOR ADVOCATE SMT.MARIAM MATHAI SRI.P.THOMAS GEEVERGHESE SRI.SAJI VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM. 2. SRI. S. SANTHANAKRISHNAN, TC 40/1659, PANACHIRA DAM ROAD, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 8929 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against Exhibit P5, the preliminary order passed by the first respondent in I.D 238/2006 setting aside the domestic enquiry conducted by the petitioner against the second respondent, the workmen concerned. 2. The first respondent considered validity of the domestic enquiry that was conducted. After appreciating the material on record, the Labour Court held that the enquiry was held in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice. It is this order which is under challenge. 3. A reading of Exhibit P5 shows that enquiry against the workman began on 26/07/99 and on that day 11 documents were marked by the Enquiry officer without examining anyone of the witnesses. On the second sitting of the enquiry held on 8/09/1999, one more document was marked without examining any witness. The 3rd sitting day was on 27/09/1999, when again 4 documents were marked without proving them through any witness and merely at the request of the Presenting Officer. It is W.P.(C) No. 8929/2009 2 recored that the workman was not even asked by the Enquiry Officer whether he had any objection in marking the documents. 4. Again the Presenting Officer produced four more documents including the alleged confession statement of the workman and a co- accused in the criminal case, which were also marked without examination of any witnesses. The worker had challenged the confession statement when he was asked by the Enquiry Officer whether he agreed with the same. All these stages, the Enquiry Officer did not ascertain whether the workman had any objection in marking the aforesaid documents. On the 5th sitting day on 11/10/1999, four more documents were produced by the Presenting Officer and without proving them though any witness and asking workman whether he has any objection, those documents were also marked. On the 6th sitting held on 12/10/2009, another document,extract of S.B Account of one Shri. A. M. Jaini, was marked without proving through anybody and without asking workman if he has any objection. It is found in the impugned order that at all these stages, the Enquiry officer did not even give an opportunity to the workman to go through the documents in order to enable enable him to W.P.(C) No. 8929/2009 3 defend his case properly. It is in view of these facts, that the Labour Court held that the enquiry is vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice. 5. I am inclined to agree with the Labour Court particularly in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and others [2009(2) SCC570],where the apex court held that the equiry held to be invalid mainly for the reason that documents were marked without proving the same thorough the witnesses and the management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof. Facts in this case are similar to the one dealt with by the Apex Court and for that reason also, the finding of the Labour Court cannot be faulted. I am not satisfied that the writ petitioner is entitled to seek any relief in this writ petition. Writ petition fails and hence it is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm