IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 15TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 14296 of 2005(B) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M. DEVAN, S/O. NAYADI, MANNATH PARAMB, CHERUVANNUR, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.M.ASOKAN SRI.DEVAPRASANTH.P.J. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. M/S. BHARAT STEELS, B.C. ROAD, CALICUT-15. 2. THE SECRETARY, STEEL MILL WORKERS UNION, RAJAJI ROAD, CALICUT. 3. THE LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI.P.S.MURALI FOR R2 SRI.K.PRAVEEN KUMAR FOR R1 SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH - GOVT. PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 14296 of 2005(B) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: COPY OF CLAIM STATEMENT IN ID NO.55/96. EXT.P2: COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE MANAGEMENT IN ID NO. 55/96. EXT.P3; COPY OF REJOINDER FILED BY THE UNION IN ID NO.55/96. EXT.P4: COPY OF AWARD DATED 19.4.2001 IN ID NO.55/96 BY THE LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE. EXT.P5: COPY OF M.P.NO.172/2001 IN ID NO.55/96 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6: COPY OF COUNTER STATEMENT IN MP NO.172/01 IN ID NO.55/96 FILED BY THE MANAGEMENT. EXT.P7: COPY OF M.P.174/2001 IN ID NO.55/96 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P8: COPY OF COUNTER STATEMENT IN MP NO.174/01 IN ID NO.55/96 FILED BY THE MANAGEMENT. EXT.P9: COPY OF M.P.NO.173/2001 IN ID NO.55/96 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P10: COPY OF COUNTER STATEMENT IN MP NO.173/01 IN ID NO.55/96 FILED BY THE MANAGEMENT. EXT.P11: COPY OF COMMON ORDER DATED 15.5.2004 IN MP NOS.172/01, 173/01, 174/01 IN ID NO.55/96 PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. acd S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.14296 OF 2005 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner was a workman of the 1st respondent management. He was dismissed from service on 12.12.1994. Through the 2nd respondent Union, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute. That was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, Kozhikode. The same was adjudicated as I.D.No.55/1996. The Union who espoused the cause of the petitioner was the party to the industrial dispute representing the petitioner. Apparently they lost interest in the case of the petitioner and did not instruct the counsel before the Labour Court. Ultimately the Labour Court passed Ext.P4 award holding that there is no subsisting industrial dispute since the Union has not appeared for giving evidence and the counsel for the Union submitted that he has no instruction in the matter. The petitioner filed M.P.No.172/2001 to implead the petitioner as a party to the industrial dispute and sought setting aside of Ext.P4 award by filing M.P.Nos.173 and 174 of 2001. All those petitions W.P.(C)No.14296/05 2 were dismissed. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “................this Honourable court may be pleased to pass writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction 1. Setting aside the Exhibit P4 award and Exhibit P11 order passed by the Labour Court- Kozhikode. 2. Directing the Labour Court to permit the petitioner to be impleaded as a party to the proceedings in ID No 55/1996 and to proceed the trial”. 2. I have heard the parties. I am of opinion that it is a travesty of justice to throw a dismissed workman to the mercy of a Union in the matter of conducting an industrial dispute in which the issue referred for adjudication is the dismissal of that workman. If the Union is not interested in the mater, the workman should be entitled to get himself impleaded in the industrial dispute as a matter of right. In fact Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act makes dismissal of an individual workman in an industrial dispute and therefore, a dismissed workman himself has raised an industrial dispute. Further, as per a very recent amendment to Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010 (Act 24 of 2010), a dismissed workman can even approach the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal directly W.P.(C)No.14296/05 3 without getting the dispute referred for adjudication by the Government. In this case, the workman was prosecuting the matter through the Union. Ext.P4 award shows that the Union became disinterested and did not instruct the counsel appropriately. They did not take steps to give evidence in the matter. The workman who is the real aggrieved party in the dispute should not be allowed to suffer because of the negligence of the Union. He does not have any other remedy, insofar as a civil suit is barred, since the matter is an industrial dispute. I do not think that a dismissed workman can be left with no remedy at all. He has approached the Labour Court within a reasonable time, after knowing about the default on the part of the Union representing him. Therefore, I am of opinion that the petitioner is entitled to have the industrial dispute regarding his dismissal decided on merits. For this purpose, the impugned award and orders are quashed. The Labour Court is directed to re-adjudicate the dispute after impleading the petitioner as an additional party in the industrial dispute. The Labour Court shall pass fresh award in the industrial dispute, after affording an opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence, as expeditiously as possible, at W.P.(C)No.14296/05 4 any rate, within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. To enable the petitioner to participate in the adjudication, the Labour Court shall issue a notice of the posting of the I.D. to the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.14296/05 5