IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 26TH MAGHA 1931 WA.No. 1706 of 2007() -------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.10001/2001 DATED 20/10/2006 .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.1: ------------------------------------------------- K.M. BALAN, SON OF VELAYUDHAN, C/O.GENERAL SECRETARY, SOUTHERN RAILWAY LABOUR UNION, EDAPPALLY NORTH, COCHIN-24. BY ADV. MR.B.GOPAKUMAR RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & 2ND RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALAKKAD. 2. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, MADRAS-3. 3. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT,KOZHIKODE. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.M.C.CHERIAN,SR.SC,RAILWAYS, SMT.ASHA CHERIAN. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J ------------------------------------- W.A No.1706 OF 2007 -------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of February 2010 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J The 1st respondent herein was the claimant in Ext.P5 claim petition filed by him before the Central Labour Court under Section 33(C)2 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The respondents in the claim petition filed Ext.P10 counter statement objecting to the claim made in Ext.P5. But the Labour Court, without referring to the contentions raised therein, allowed Ext.P5 by Ext.P11 order. Challenging Ext.P11 the Writ Petition was filed by the respondents herein. They also produced Exts.P1 to P4 and P6 to P9 documents in support of the reliefs sought. The learned single Judge took the view that in view of those documents, no amount was due to the appellant. Taking that view, Ext.P1 order was quashed. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, this writ petition is preferred. 2. Heard. We noticed that without giving any reasons, the learned single Judge arrived at a conclusion that no amount was due to the appellant and based on that finding, Ext.P11 has been quashed. We think, having regard to the nature of the dispute, the claim petition should have been remitted to the Labour Court W.A No.1706 OF 2007 Page numbers for fresh consideration and disposal in the light of the materials produced by the respondents herein. Accordingly, we allow this appeal setting aside the judgment of the learned single Judge and remitting Ext.P5 to the third respondent herein. The said officer shall issue notice to both sides, hear them and pass a fresh order in accordance with law after taking into account the materials on record. Needless to say, if the claimant or the respondent therein seek for a chance to adduce evidence, the same shall be allowed. Writ Appeal is allowed as above. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR JUDGE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE //True copy// P.A TO JUDGE vdv