IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 28TH MAGHA 1930 OP.No. 19215 of 1998(K) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- GERTRUDE THOMAS, HOUSE NO. 1065, NEAR MAJOR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, K.D. PLOT, P.O. SOUTH KALAMASSERRY-683 109. BY ADV. SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LABOUR AND REHABILITATION (A) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM. 3. R. GOVINDA RAO, MANAGING PARTNER, BHARAT HOTEL, D.H. ROAD, P.B.NO.2357, ERNAKULAM.16. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. T.K. VIPIN DAS. SRI. PAUL KURIAKOSE – FOR R3. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: O.PNO. 19215/1998. -------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF AWARD DT. 29-4-1995. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O.P. No. 19215 of 1998 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 17th February, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the workman involved in I.A.No.64/1991 before the Labour Court, Ernakulam. She is challenging Ext.P1 award passed by the Labour Court in that Industrial Dispute. 2. The issues referred for adjudication were: “(1) Whether the termination of services of Miss. Gertrude Thomas, Telex Operator is justified or not? (2) The reliefs entitled to the employee, if any.” 3. The case of the petitioner was that after going on leave from 14.6.1990 and having the leave extended up to 21.7.1990, although she reported for duty on 22.7.1990, she was not permitted to join duty and she was asked to apply for leave again. Subsequently, she was discharged from service on the ground of unauthorised absence. The management contended that the petitioner did not report for duty after the leave was over and by virtue of clause 17 of the Service Rules applicable to the petitioner, she was discharged from service. Before the Labour Court the petitioner did not choose to adduce any evidence. The management examined two witnesses and produced six documents to prove that the petitioner committed the misconduct of unauthorised absence, pursuant to which only, she was discharged from service. 4. According to the petitioner, since termination for overstayal of leave amounts to discharge from service the management not having complied with the procedure prescribed under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act for retrenchment, the termination of her service is bad. The management took the contention that the petitioner having been discharged from service by virtue of Rule 17 of O.P. No. 19215/98. -: 2 :- the service rules applicable to the workman of the management, there is no illegality in discharging her from service. The management raises a further contention that the original petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the management that Ext. P1 award was passed as early as on 29-4-1995, which was published in the Gazette dated 26-12-1995. The petitioner has filed this original petition only on 6- 10-1998. The petitioner has not offered any explanation for the long delay also. 5. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 6. The petitioner could not controvert the formidable objection raised by the management with regard to delay and laches. As pointed out by the counsel for the management, the award was published in the Gazette dated 26-12-1995. The petitioner has filed this original petition after almost three years. The petitioner has not even offered an explanation for the long delay. It is settled law that unexplained delay and laches would be fatal to a writ petition. 7. Apart from the above, I find that the petitioner was not serious in contesting the matter at all. Before the Labour Court, the petitioner did not adduce any evidence whatsoever. On the other hand, the management examined two witnesses and marked six documents on the basis of which only the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of the misconduct of unauthorised absence without leave. For all the above reasons, I am not inclined to entertain this original petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/