IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2010 / 5TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 32974 of 2009(N) ----------------------------------- MP.1/2007 of LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ THE GENERAL MANAGER, B.C.CHERUVALLY ESTATE, P.B.NO.2, ERUMELY.P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.P.K.SURESH KUMAR SMT.P.JAYALAKSHMI RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- SRI.MANI, CR.NO.1756, DRIVER, FACTORY, B.C.CHERUVALLY ESTATE, KANAKAPALAM POST-686 509, (VIA) ERUMELY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.32974/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 10.5.07 (M.P. NO.1/07) FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM. P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 27.8.09 IN IA. 309/2008 IN MP. 1/2007 PASSED BY LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM. P3:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 1.10.09 IN MP. 1/07 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM. P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 1.10.09 IN IA. 235/09 IN MP. NO.1/07 PASSED BY LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM. P5:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 1.10.09 IN IA. NO.309/08 IN MP. 1/07 PASSED BY LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM. P6:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 1.10.09 IN IA. 308/08 IN MP. 1/07 PASSED BY LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No.32974 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 25th January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Exts. P4, P5 and P6 orders by which applications filed by the petitioner have been dismissed. The respondent, who had been working as a driver in the petitioner's establishment, had been dismissed from service after conducting due enquiry. 2. In order to confirm the dismissal of the respondent, the petitioner had approached the Labour Court, Ernakulam by filing Ext.P1 petition. Though notice on the said petition was issued by the Labour Court, the case of the petitioner is that no notice was served on him. So the petitioner was not aware of the posting of the case. Therefore, Ext.P1 petition was dismissed on 25.10.2007. 3. When the petitioner came to know about the dismissal of the said petition, he filed a petition for setting aside the order passed against him ex parte by preferring a review petition against the same. The review petition was allowed after condoning the delay of 359 days in filing W.P (C) No.32974 of 2009 2 the petition. As per Ext.P2 order, the Labour Court allowed the petition on condition that the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.2000/- as costs to the respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the said order. Thereafter, the case was posted to 10.9.2009. However, on the said date, since the respondent was not available in court, the petitioner alleges that the cost was not paid. Thereafter, on 1.10.2009, he filed a petition for receiving the amount of cost. He also filed a petition for condonation of the delay in payment of costs as well as a petition to review the order declaring him ex parte. 4. All the three petitions have been dismissed by orders Exts. P4, P5 and P6. The Labour Court has dismissed the petitions for the sole reason that the amount of costs was not deposited within the time stipulated by Ext.P2 order. Petitioner challenges the said proceedings before this Court. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the petitioner was ready to pay the amount of costs on 10.9.2009 the same could not be paid only for the reason that the respondent was not available W.P (C) No.32974 of 2009 3 in court. Therefore, the Labour Court erred in dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner without taking note of the above fact. 5. Though notice has been served on the respondent, he has not appeared in court. In view of his absence, I do not want to say anything with regard to the facts that are pleaded before me. However, since the Labour Court had decided to condone the delay and to give him an opportunity to contest the proceedings, I feel that he should not be denied the said chance for the sole reason that he did not deposit the amount of costs within the time stipulated by the Court. I also feel that the petitioner can be given one more chance to comply with the direction of the Labour Court to pay the amount of costs. 6. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing that if the petitioner pays to the respondent or deposits before the Labour Court, Ernakulam the amount of Rs. 2000/- directed to be paid as costs, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, I.A Nos. 235/09, 308/08 and 309/08 shall stand W.P (C) No.32974 of 2009 4 allowed. It is made clear that if the petitioner does not comply with the above condition, the orders Exts.P4, P5 and P6 shall remain in force. No costs. K.SURENDRA MOHAN,JUDGE ma W.P (C) No.32974 of 2009 5