IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2009 / 21ST ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 28807 of 2009(U) -------------------------- CP.25/2007 of LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM ID.9/2006 of INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, IDUKKI .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- THE PRESIDENT, NEDUMKUNNAM SOUTH SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.1271, NEDUMKUNNAM, PUNNAVELI.P.O, 689 589. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, IDUKKI. 2. SMT.ALEYAMMA JOHN, CHETTUTHADAM HOUSE, CHELAKOMPU.P.O, KARUKACHAL-686 540. GOVT. PLEADER K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.28807 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 13th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the management in I.D.No.9/2006 before the Industrial Tribunal, Idukki and opposite party in Claim Petition No.25/02 before the Labour Court, Ernakulam, filed by the workman concerned, for implementation of Ext.P2 award in I.D.No.9/2006. The 2nd respondent herein raised the industrial dispute complaining that she has been unjustly denied employment by the petitioner society. The petitioner received notice in the I.D, but did not take part in the proceedings before the Tribunal. Therefore, by Ext.P2 ex parte award dated 13.9.2006, the Tribunal directed the management to reinstate the workman in service with backwages and all other benefits. On the ground that the manager, who was entrusted with the task of defending the management in the I.D., did not take appropriate steps to defend the management, the petitioner filed Ext.P3 application to set aside the ex parte award, on 16.7.2008. By Ext.P4 order dated 15.9.2008, the Tribunal dismissed the application to set aside the ex parte award on the ground that since the Tribunal had become functus officio on expiry of one month after publication of the award, the petition to set aside the ex parte award is not maintainable. The petitioner did not pursue the matter further at that time. In the meanwhile, the workman had filed Claim Petition No.25/2007 for computing the monetary benefits under the award, since she was not 2 reinstated as directed in the award. Then also the petitioner did not wake up. Instead they chose to contest that claim petition. Ultimately, by Ext.P5 order dated 6.11.2008, the Labour Court directed the petitioner-management to pay to the workman an amount of Rs.12,100/-. The petitioner is now challenging Exts.P2 and P5. I am unable to entertain this writ petition since the petitioner has not been able to explain the delay in approaching this Court satisfactorily with any amount of conviction. Ext.P2 award was passed on 13.9.2006. The petitioner knew about the award at least on 16.7.2008 when the petition to set aside the ex parte award was filed and suffered Ext.P4 order dated 15.9.2008 dismissing that petition. The petitioner could have challenged Ext.P2 award at least after Ext.P4. The petitioner did not. Even prior to passing of Ext.P4 Claim Petition No.25/07 had been filed by the workman. Instead of challenging Ext.P2 award the petitioner chose to contest the claim petition and suffered Ext.P5 order dated 6.11.2008. Even after Ext.P5 order it is almost a year. None of these inordinate delays have been satisfactorily explained by the petitioner. Therefore, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 3