IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2008 / 6TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 10009 of 2008(N) -------------------------- ID.82/2000 of INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER: ------------ P.A.AKHILESWARAN, PARAYAMPARABIL HOUSE, PANAIKULAM P.O. BY ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR SRI.MANU GOVIND RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA. 2. KONGARAPILY FARMERS' SERVICE CO-OP. BANK LTD. KONGARPILLY P.O., 683 525, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY G.P. SHRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.10009 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 26th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the workman involved in I.D.No.82/2002 before the Industrial Tribunal, Alappuzha. He is challenging Ext.P1 award passed by the Tribunal in that I.D. The issue referred for adjudication was the validity of the punishment of dismissal awarded to the petitioner by the management, which is a co-operative bank. The petitioner was dismissed after being found guilty of misconducts in two enquiries conducted for the purpose. Therefore, the Tribunal considered the validity of the enquiries as a preliminary point. In respect of the first enquiry, the Tribunal did not specifically enter a finding regarding the validity of the enquiry, but the preliminary order goes to show that the Tribunal accepted it to be as a valid enquiry. In respect of the second enquiry, the Tribunal found that the enquiry was invalid and directed the management to adduce evidence. Evidence was adduced and the Tribunal found the workman guilty of misappropriation of money on the basis of the evidence w.p.c.10009/08 2 adduced by the management. Pursuant thereto, the Tribunal upheld the punishment of dismissal imposed on the workman and held that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the industrial dispute. That award is under challenge in this writ petition. I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition without going into the merits on the ground of delay and laches alone. Ext.P1 award was passed on 2.11.2005. This writ petition was filed on 25.3.2008, two years later. Not even an attempt is made to explain the long delay of more than 2 years in filing this writ petition. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.10009/08 3