IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2008 / 9TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 22551 of 2005(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M/S.MATHA FISH FARM, SOUTH CHELLANAM, KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, P.C.CHERIAN. BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. P.K.HARIKUTTAN, S/O.POKKOTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE,KUTTAMANGALAM P.O., KAINAKARI, ALAPPUZHA. 2. LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR FOR R1 SRI.MANU GOVIND FOR R1 R2&3 BY G.P. SMT.SMITHA SUKUMARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF CONFESSIONS STATEMENT OF R1. P2: TRUE COPY OF CLAIM STATEMENT. P3: TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY PETITIONER. P4: TRUE COPY OF REJOINDER FILED BY R1/WORKMAN. P5: TRUE COPY OF AWARD DT.18.10.2001 PASSED BY R2 IN ID 101/94. P6: TRUE COPY OF R.R. NOTICE ISSUED BY R3. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R1(A): TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT.15.2.2002 SENT BY R1 TO THE PETITIONER. R1(B): TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT.5.2.2003 .DO. R1(C): .DO. DT.27.6.2003 .DO. R1(D): TRUE COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD. R1(E): TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.17.8.04 IN CP. 50/03. R1(F): TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.28.6.05 PASSED BY LABOUR COURT IN CP.44/05. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.22551 of 2005 .................................................................... Dated this the 31st day of July, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging Ext.P5 award passed by the Labour Court, Ernakulam directing reinstatement of first respondent with back wages in petitioner's fish farm. The case of the first respondent was denial of employment by the management. However, the case of the petitioner is that first respondent who was in charge of the fish farm, misappropriated funds and when criminal case was proposed to be launched against him after detection of irregularities, he confessed the guilt and gave Ext.P1 request for pardoning him. However, more than one year after the alleged denial of employment, the first respondent backed out and got the I.D. referred to the Government which led to the impugned award. I have gone through the award and heard counsel appearing for the petitioner. Counsel for the first respondent reported relinquishment of vakalath two months back. However, first respondent has not chosen to engage any other counsel in the course of last two months. I do not think the case should be kept pending any longer. Therefore, I proceed to dispose of the case based on documents and after hearing the petitioner. 2 2. The first respondent has not denied Ext.P1 written by him to the petitioner wherein he has conceded to irregularities and misappropriation of some funds of the petitioner in the course of his employment. The Labour Court however rejected the petitioner's case based on Ext.P1 on the ground that confession is not specific and based on Ext.P1 first respondent cannot be held guilty of any charges. Moreover, what weighed with the court is dismissal of a money suit filed by the petitioner against first respondent pertaining to the same matter. I am unable to agree with the reasoning of the Labour Court in rejecting Ext.P1 because the Labour Court has not given any significance to the inordinate delay of the first respondent in raising the dispute with the management. Admittedly, denial of employment started on 28.7.1992. However, the first application filed by the first respondent before the District Labour Officer is only on 5.10.1993 i.e. after one year and three months from the date of denial of employment. There is no proper explanation by the first respondent as to why he delayed the matter for so long, if he had a real and genuine grievance against denial of employment. The facts proved in this case show that the first respondent was a loyal worker with the petitioner in a gold shop and thereafter he was trained by the petitioner for handling a fish farm. He was given charge of the petitioner's fish farm after he was trained at the cost of the petitioner in 3 the Marine Products Export Development Authority's establishment. On going through the contents of Ext.P1, I find that the first respondent has given meticulous details of the alleged irregularities committed by him. He does not deny Ext.P1, but maintains a view that Ext.P1 was written by pressure from petitioner. If petitioner was in a position to exert pressure on the first respondent and if they can get Ext.P1 written by him, I see no reason why petitioner could not obtain a resignation letter from the first respondent which would have ended up his employment. The circumstances which led to Ext.P1, the guilt of the first respondent admitted in Ext.P1 and the inordinate delay in lodging the complaint against the management, clearly show that the first respondent had not come with true facts. Obviously some irregularity was committed by the first respondent which led to his abandoning the job or the petitioner keeping out first respondent from service. The first respondent has not attributed any motives to the petitioner in keeping him out of service. As already stated, the first respondent was a loyal employee of the petitioner and that is why he was given training by the petitioner and later employed in the fish farm owned by the petitioner. Therefore, the finding of the Labour Court that Ext.P1 is not a clear admission of his guilt is only to be rejected. However, strangely the petitioner has no case that the first respondent has resigned 4 from service. No action was taken against the first respondent terminating his employment or giving him any benefits. Therefore, I find fault on the part of the petitioner as well. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that first respondent got employment later in Government service. However, he was in the service of the petitioner for about five years. In these circumstances and in view of the findings above, I feel the relief portion of the award certainly requires some modification. Accordingly, W.P. is allowed in part by vacating the award directing reinstatement, but I direct the petitioner to pay a total compensation of rupees fifty thousand to the first respondent within a period of two months from today. Since no counsel is appearing for the first respondent as of now, the petitioner will communicate the decision of this court and give an Account Payee Cheque for the above amount in favour of the first respondent. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms