IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 30562 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.S.RAVEENDRAN, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.CHANDRAN, THATTAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PALLURUTHY P.O., KOCHI-6. BY ADV. SRI.A.X.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION 38/733, MAVELI BHAVAN, GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI-682 020. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S.FALCON INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., PUTHIYA ROAD JUNCTIN, INTEGRATED SERVICE COMPLEX, P.B.NO.4030, UDYOGAMANDAL P.O., ERNAKULAM. 3. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.LAKSHMI NARAYAN, SC, SUPPLYCO SR. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.K.S.MUHAMMED HASHIM ADV.MOLLY JACOB, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.30562 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 12th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the workman involved in I.D.No.17/2008 before the Labour Court, Ernakulam. He is challenging Ext.P1 ex parte award passed in that I.D. and the orders, by which, the Labour Court dismissed his applications to condone delay in applying for setting aside the ex parte award and to set aside the ex parte award. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent- Kerala Civil Supplies Corporation also. 3. The reason for non appearance of the petitioner before the Tribunal on the relevant dates is explained by the petitioner in paragraph 2 of the writ petition as follows: “2. On receipt of the summons from the 3rd respondent Labour Court on 3/9/2008 petitioner appeared through counsel and filed vakkalath in I.D. 16/2008 due to the bonafide belief that there was only one industrial dispute pursuant to the industrial dispute raised by the four workmen i.e., I.D.14/08, 15/08 and 16/08. On that day the case was adjourned to 30/9/2008. On 30/9/2008 the I.D. 16/2008 posted to 11/11/2008. On that day due to the defective of the vakkalath with a direction to cure the defect the 3rd respondent Labour Court posted the industrial dispute to 10/12/2008. But on that day though the claim statement has been preferred in the above I.D. 17/08 due to the death ceremony of the mother of the petitioner he could not appear before the 3rd respondent Labour Court and signed the claim statement. Therefore, the 3rd respondent Labour Court passed an award on 10/12/2008.” Certainly there was some laches on the part of the petitioner- workman in prosecuting his case appropriately. However, in so far as the proceedings in the industrial dispute started in July, 2008 and W.P.C.30562/09 2 Ext.P1 award was passed on 10.12.2008 and it cannot be said that the same is deliberate or culpable, I am inclined to grant another opportunity to the petitioner to contest the matter on merits. Accordingly, Ext.P1 award and Exts.P3 and P5 orders are quashed. The Labour Court is directed to readjudicate the industrial dispute after affording opportunity to all parties to adduce fresh evidence and for hearing. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge