IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2009 / 25TH ASHADHA 1931 OP.No. 4435 of 1999(C) ---------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.PADMANABHAN, "SREE NIVAS", TIRUR-1. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH BABU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. GENERAL SECRETARY, PRIVATE HOSPITAL & MEDICAL SHOP EMPLOYEES UNION (INTUC) DISTRICT COMMITTEE, INTUC OFFICE, KOZHIKODE-11. 2. LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE. ADDL. RESPONDENT: 3. SRI.MOHANDAS, S/O.APPU NAIR, PADMALAYAM, TIRUTHIYAD, CALICUT-4. (ADDL. 3RD RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DT.14.9.2007 IN I.A. 12321/2007.) THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP NO.7535/1999 IN O.P. NO.4435/1999 DISMISSED: 16.7.2009 SD/-(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF AWARD OF R2 DT.8.6.98. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... O.P. No.4435 of 1999 .................................................................... Dated this the 16th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging Ext.P1 award by which the Labour Court ordered reinstatement of the employee who was allegedly denied employment, with back wages. Counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner closed business in 1993 and even sales tax registration was cancelled from 1.4.1994. On going through the award, I find that even though the management had filed written objections specifically contending that the employee had no qualification to work in the business of distribution of medicines by the petitioner as a licencee and the management has also raised allegation that the employee had collected amounts due to the management from various manufactures of drug, the Labour Court has set the management exparte and proceeded to decide the case based on evidence furnished by the Union and the employee. The case of the petitioner is that counsel reported no instruction after closure of the business and the same was not informed to the petitioner. I feel the counsel engaged in the matter should report no instruction to the court only after informing the same to the party so that he can engage another counsel or appear 2 himself in the matter. In the circumstances and in view of the specific case of the petitioner about closure of business and allegation against the employee, I feel the exparte award requires to be recalled. Accordingly, O.P. is allowed vacating the award and restoring the matter back to the Labour Court for reconsideration, if the claimant is interested. The Labour Court is directed to issue notice to both the parties and decide the matter afresh within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms