IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN SATURDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2011 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 23692 of 2006(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.M.MATHEW, AGED 47, S/O.MATHAI, KARAKKATTU HOUSE, KOZHUVANAL P.O., KOTTAYAM, NOW RESIDING AT KARAKATTU HOUSE, ANIKKAD P.O., PALLIKKATHODU, KOTTYAM. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY SMT.THANKOM.G RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, ALLEPPEY. 2. KOZHUVANAL SERVICE CO-OP. BANK LTD., NO.K-213, KOZHUVANAL P.O., KOTTAYAM. R2 BY ADV. SRI.H.B.SHENOY SMT.LAKSHMI B.SHENOY SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BKA WP(C).No. 23692 of 2006(U) APPENDIX PETITIONER'(S) EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 COPY OF THE IMPUGNED AWARD PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'(S) EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE BKA S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.23692 of 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the workman in I.D. No.44/2003 on the files of the Industrial Tribunal, Alappuzha. The issue involved in that ID was dismissal of the petitioner by the 2nd respondent management from service. Since the management contended that the workman was dismissed from service after having been found guilty in a domestic enquiry conducted for that purpose, the Industrial Tribunal, Idukki who was at that time considering the said I.D. recorded evidence on the preliminary question of validity of that enquiry. After evidence was adduced on the preliminary issue, the I.D. was transferred to the Industrial Tribunal, Alappuzha. Thereafter, the Industrial Tribunal, Alappuzha passed a preliminary order based on the evidence adduced before the other Tribunal and found that the enquiry was conducted in compliance with principles of natural justice and charges were also proved. However W.P.(C)No.23692 of 2006 -2- taking a lenient view, the Tribunal directed that the punishment be converted into one of discharge. Ext.P1 is the final award passed in which the preliminary order has been extracted. The petitioner is challenging the preliminary order and the award primarily on the ground that the petitioner was not given an effective opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry. 2. I have heard the counsel for the 2nd respondent also. 3. The contention of the petitioner that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to adduce evidence is on the ground that he was not given a notice regarding the enquiry. But in the preliminary order, the Tribunal entered a finding that even at the time of suspension pending enquiry the petitioner had embarked on a series of litigation in which he had obtained a stay and ultimately in W.A. 2037/1998 a Division Bench of this Court permitted the management to continue with the enquiry. That judgment was dated 30.10.1998. The petitioner was served W.P.(C)No.23692 of 2006 -3- with a notice fixing the enquiry on 23.10.1998. The petitioner did not appear before the Enquiry officer on that date. But the enquiry officer, finding that on 23.10.1998 there was a “harthal” in Meenachil Taluk, himself adjourned the enquiry suo motu to 7.11.1998. A registered letter was issued to the petitioner. It was returned to the enquiry officer with the endorsement “not claimed - returned to the sender”. In the above circumstances, the enquiry officer continued with the enquiry and submitted an eqnuiry report finding the petitioner guilty of the misconducts alleged on him. The petitioner's contention is that when the notice reached in the petitioner's residence he was not there since he had gone to Bangalore. According to the petitioner, the fact that he had gone to Bangalore was known to the enquiry officer himself. But strangely in the writ petition the averment is not like that. He states that he did not know about the order of the Division Bench of this Court permitting continuance of the enquiry till 12.12.1998 and he was under the bonafide belief that the stay granted in O.P. W.P.(C)No.23692 of 2006 -4- No.21979/1998 staying the enquiry proceedings was in force and that is why he did not participate in the enquiry. As such the contention of the petitioner before the Tribunal and before this Court are contradictory. Even otherwise going by the evidence before the Industrial Tribunal, the petitioner was very well aware of the enquiry proceedings since he had received a notice fixing the enquiry on 23.10.1998. If there was a harthal on that date, the petitioner should have at least on the next day contacted the enquiry officer and ascertained the next posting date. In fact the notice issued to the petitioner was returned with the endorsement “not claimed - returned to the sender”. In view of the above, I am not inclined to countenance the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner was not given a notice of posting of the enquiry. Consequently I do not find any merit in the contention that the enquiry was in violation of principles of natural justice. 4. I have gone through the charges which were found proved by the Industrial Tribunal. I am satisfied that W.P.(C)No.23692 of 2006 -5- they are serious enough to warrant the punishment confirmed by the Industrial Tribunal, namely that of discharge from service. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/