IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 32949 of 2008(V) -------------------------- ID.39/2007 of LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- JIJIMON.K.T., KOTTANADAN HOUSE, MADAVANA, PANANGAD P.O., ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.R.CHANDRASEKHARAN SRI.T.H.CHACKO RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM. 2. THE MANAGER, ACCELERATED FREEZE DRYING COMPANY LTD., EZHUPUNNA P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA. ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R2 SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R2 SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI FOR R2 SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS FOR R2 SRI.ANIL D. NAIR FOR R2 SRI.V.J.ANAND FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).32949/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 19th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner, a workman challenges Ext.P27 Preliminary Award passed by the Labour Court, Kollam, in I.D.39/2007. The question of validity of the domestic enquiry by the petitioner was considered by the Tribunal of the Labour Court in the first instance and the Labour Court has proceeded to hold as follows:- “In view of the finding on Point Nos.1 and 2 that the domestic enquiry wherein the Workman was found guilty of the charges levelled in the Show Cause notice dated 26.2.2003 was legal and proper and the finding of the Enquiry Officer therein was supported by the evidence on record the case is posted for consideration of the other issues involved.” 2. Obviously, this does not preclude from consideration, notwithstanding the finding that the domestic enquiry is not vitiated, whether the W.P.(C).32949/2008 2 punishment imposed on the petitioner is otherwise sustainable or whether it is improper or disproportionate. In other words, Labour Court has nevertheless jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders under Section 11A of the I.D.Act. 3. I heard Mr.N.R.Chandrasekharan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.E.K.Nandakumar for the Management. 4. I am not inclined to consider the correctness of Ext.P27 at this stage. If at the final stage, the Labour Court does not interfere with the punishment imposed by the Management, and passes an award in that regard, it would be open to the petitioner to not only challenge the final award but also the correctness of the Preliminary Award. An interference by this Court when proceedings are pending before the Labour Court should be embarked upon only in extremely rare cases. 5. In the result, writ petition is disposed of reserving W.P.(C).32949/2008 3 the rights of the petitioner to challenge Ext.P27, if the need arises, after the final award is passed by the Labour Court, Kollam, in I.D.39/2007. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs