IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2009 / 1ST MAGHA 1930 WA.No. 2214 of 2006() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.87/2000 Dated 02/11/2005 .................... APPELLANT/IST RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------- THE MANAGING PARTNER, MUTHOOT BANKERS ALIBICO BUILDINGS, SHAKTHIKULANGARA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.ALEX VARGHESE RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 2ND RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------ 1. T.N.BHASKARAN NAIR, SREELAKSHMY, THEVALLY.P.O., KOLLAM-9. 2. THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY, Ag.CJ & V.GIRI, J. =========================== W.A.No.2214 of 2006 - B =============================== Dated this the 21st day of January, 2009. J U D G M E N T Koshy, Ag.CJ. Writ petitioner was dismissed from service for serious misconduct such as unauthorised absence, misappropriation of funds, unsuitability to continue in service, violation of rules etc. He joined in service of the appellant shop after his retirement as a Government servant. The charge sheet was issued while he was working as a clerk/cashier with the 1st respondent. The workman had applied for leave for one month and thereafter he did not join duty. He filed a claim petition before the Labour Court. Tribunal considered the validity of the enquiry as a preliminary issue. Tribunal found that enquiry was conducted in accordance with law and in compliance with the principles of natural justice. The workman was also participated in the enquiry proceedings. It was also held that the findings are proper. After the preliminary finding, final award award was later passed (award was not produced in the writ petition). No relief W.A.No.2214 of 2006 - B 2 was granted. Ext.P9 preliminary order only was challenged before this Court. Preliminary order is merged with the final award passed by the court. Only final award can be challenged. Petitioner also claimed wages for the period he was out of employment on the ground that he was not suspended pending enquiry and not allowed to work. But findings in the enquiry proves that he did not join duty. When Ext.P9 is approved, no further relief can be granted. If petitioner is entitled to any relief, he has to press before the Tribunal. The Tribunal also dismissed the claim petition filed under Section 33(c)(ii) of the Industrial Disputes Act regarding the very same claim. In these circumstances, learned Single Judge has passed the judgment without jurisdiction. Therefore, we set aside the impugned judgment and the appeal stands allowed. J.B.KOSHY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE. V.GIRI, JUDGE. bkn/-