IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 8TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 20319 of 2009(H) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18/06/2009 IN IA 142/09 IN ID.11/2003 of LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- JASMINE P.SCARIA, VRINDAVAN, S.H.MOUNT P.O., REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY, SRI.JILSON P.SCARIA, AGED 32 YEARS, POTTANANYIL HOUSE, MALIPARA P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, RASHTRA DEPIKA LTD., KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.JOMY GEORGE FOR R1 SRI.M.J.BENNY FOR R1 SRI.SEBASTIAN THOMAS FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.20319 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 30th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the workman involved in I.D.No.11/2003 before the Labour Court, Ernakulam. The workman is challenging Ext.P3 order of the Labour Court in I.A.No.142/2009 in that I.D., which reads thus: “Application rejected since workman did not appear though she was stated to be present in station on 5.3.09, date on which she was directed to be present.” According to the petitioner, the order amounts to rejection of the contentions of the petitioner. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. I had called for a report from the Labour Court on the allegations raised in the writ petition in order to ascertain the reason for directing the workman to appear in person. In the report submitted by the Labour Court it is stated thus: “The issue referred for adjudication in I.D.11/2003 is 'whether the management has denied employment to the workman?' The management and counsel of the workman expressed willingness to settle the matter and the I.D. was being adjourned for settlement. By the time, the counsel of the workman passed away in January, 2009 and on 5.2.2009, as there was no representation for the workman and the counsel of the workman was no more, I ordered notice to the workman and also directed the workman to be present so as to assess about the possibility of settlement. On the next posting date on 5.3.2009, the workman did not appear and it is reported that the workman was appearing through fresh counsel. As the workman remained absent, I again ordered the workman to be present on the next posting on 30.4.2009 so as to ascertain whether the dispute will be settled. On that date also, the workman remained absent and applied for time. I rejected that 2 application and posted the case for hearing. But the workman prayed for time on the adjourned date and on the next posting date on 2.7.09, the workman was not represented. It be noted that on 2.7.09, I heard the counsel of the management's demand and adjourned the case to 30.7.09. It is thereafter, the workman obtained the order of stay on 20.7.09 when there was no direction for the workman to appear in person. It is submitted that I had directed the workman to appear on 5.3.09 and 30.4.2009 only to assess about the possibility for settlement and it is not done malafide.” In view of the said report nothing further needs to be done in this case except to direct the Labour Court to dispose of the industrial dispute in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge