IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 29TH APRIL 2011 / 9TH VAISAKHA 1933 OP(LC).No. 1559 of 2011(O) -------------------------- ID.12/2010 of C.GOVT.LABOUR COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------ VIJAYA BANK, A BODY CORPORATE CONSTITUTED AND FUNCTIONING UNDER THE BANKING COMPANIES ACT AT 41/2, M.G.ROAD BANGALORE REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, VIJAYA BANK, JOS ANNEX, JOS JUNCTION, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA SRI.M.S.KALESH SRI.HARISH GOPINATH SRI.V.VINAY MENON SRI.M.AJAY (IRUMPANAM) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE JOINT SECRETARY, VIJAYA BANK WORKERS ORGANISATION, 283, PYCROFTS ROAD, TRIPLICANE, MADRAS-05. 2. THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, KARSHAKA ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682 036, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.J.MOHAMED ANZAR THIS OP (LABOUR COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------------- O.P(L.C).No. 1559 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of April, 2011 JUDGMENT This Original Petition arises from an order passed by the second respondent in I.D.No.12 of 2010. The proceeding started with petitioner initiating disciplinary proceeding against a workman for alleged misconduct. In the enquiry it was found that the workman indulged in misconduct. Based on the report of enquiry officer, three increments of the workman were barred. That was challenged before the Industrial Disputes Court, Kollam. It was argued before that Forum on behalf of the workman that a copy of enquiry report was not given to him and hence the enquiry is vitiated. The said Forum answered the issue in favour of petitioner. That order was challenged in this Court in O.P.No.15480 of 1997. This Court disposed of Original Petition as per Exhibit P9 judgment dated 26.7.2005. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that this Court found that copy of the inquiry report was not given to workman. This Court directed that a fresh Award in accordance with law in I.D.No.21 of 1994 shall be passed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of records. Accordingly, second respondent enquired OP.(LC).1559/11 - 2 - into the matter and passed Exhibit P10 preliminary order dated June 16, 2010. Second respondent held on the evidence recorded before it that the enquiry is invalid and vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice and denial of reasonable opportunity to the charge sheeted workman. That order is under challenge in this proceeding. 2. Learned counsel submitted that in fact a copy of the report of inquiry was given to workman, but since the matter is a pretty old, relevant records to support service of copy of report could not be produced. It is not disputed before me that this Court in the Original Petition referred above found that a copy of report of enquiry was not given to the workman and that prejudiced him. That judgment has become final. In view of that finding, petitioner cannot contend that a copy of the report of enquiry was given to the workman. In that view of the matter, there is no reason to interfere with Exhibit P10 order. The Original Petition is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE vgs