IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2010 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 6965 of 2010(U) ------------------------------------- (I.D.NO.26/2002 OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM) .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- SREE NARAYANA TRUSTS, KOLLAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. BY MR.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADVS. MR.S.SUJIN, SMT.NITA.N.S. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. D.RAVEENDRANATHAN, VANKIL HOUSE, SIVAGIRI ROAD, VARKALA-695 141. 2. THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM. R2 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO:6965 OF 2010 U ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd March, 2010. JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P6 order of the Industrial Tribunal, Kollam dated 26/6/2009 in I.D.No: 26/2002. The question that was referred for the adjudication of the Tribunal was, whether the denial of employment to the workman as a U.D.Clerk under the S.N.I.T.C, Kottiyam with effect from 23.1.1991 was justifiable or not and also whether the workman was entitled to any relief in view of his superannuation. 2. The first respondent while working as a U.D.Clerk was subjected to disciplinary proceedings on various charges. In the domestic enquiry conducted, the charges were found to be proved and, therefore, he was dismissed from service. 3. The question as to whether the domestic enquiry that was conducted was proper or not was considered by the Industrial Tribunal as a preliminary issue. The Tribunal has found that the domestic enquiry and report are vitiated. This writ petition is filed challenging the said order. 4. I notice that Ext.P6 is only a preliminary order and that the management would get an opportunity to adduce further evidence WPC 6965/2010 2 to justify the disciplinary action that was taken against the first respondent before the Industrial Tribunal itself. The petitioner also has a right to challenge the final order that the Industrial Tribunal may pass in the proceedings. At the time of challenging the final order of the Industrial Tribunal, the petitioner would also have the right to challenge the preliminary order Ext.P6. Therefore this writ petition at present is unnecessary. 5. In the above circumstances this writ petition is disposed of reserving the liberty of the petitioner to challenge Ext.P6 preliminary order if and when the final order to be passed in I.D.26/2002 is challenged by the petitioner. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 6965/2010 3 K.K.DENESAN & V. RAMKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO: ----------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Dated: