IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2011 / 28TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 26767 of 2011(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JINU VARGHESE, GENERAL WORKER, LISIE HOSPITAL, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 018. BY ADV. DR.V.N.SANKARJEE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ENQUIRY OFFICER, ADVOCATE SHRI.JOLLY JOSE K., 9/518, ST.AGNUS CONVENT ROAD, NAZARETH, KOCHI - 2. 2. THE DIRECTOR, LISE HOSPITAL, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 018. 3. M.J.APREM, GENERAL MANAGER, LISE HOSPITAL, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 018. 4. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682030. GP SRI.MOHAMMED SHAH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 26767 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P-1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 9.7.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.8.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P-3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 19.9.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P-4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 27.9.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. (True copy) P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).26767/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 20th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner submits that he was a workman under respondents 2 and 3. It appears that on allegations of misconduct, he was placed under suspension and the first respondent has been appointed to conduct a domestic enquiry against him. Petitioner made Ext.P4 application to the first respondent seeking permission to engage an advocate to represent him and to assist in the enquiry. Orders have not been passed on Ext.P4. Therefore this writ petition has been filed seeking a direction requiring the fifth respondent to direct the first respondent to permit the petitioner to appoint a lawyer, or his Union President to assist him in the enquiry. 2. In my view, this writ petition is not maintainable. First of all in the matter of disciplinary action, the District Labour Officer, the fifth respondent, has no role whatsoever. It is a matter which is entirely between the disciplinary authority and the delinquent. The District Officer will have role to play only when on conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, if an industrial dispute is raised before W.P.(C).26767/11 2 him. As far as the enquiry Officer is concerned, he is only a delegate of the disciplinary authority, who has been entrusted with the task of conducting the enquiry on behalf of the Management. Since employer is a private management, no writ will lie against the Management and therefore, the petition has to be rejected. Even otherwise if the request of a delinquent for assistance of a counsel or Union representative in a domestic enquiry is unjustifiably denied, that ultimately might have an impact on the validity of the enquiry and such a stand taken by the enquiry Officer is to be urged as and when, the validity of enquiry is considered by the Labour Court or Tribunal. I do not see any substance in the writ petition. It is dismissed accordingly. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs