IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2008 / 16TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 19342 of 2008(C) -------------------------- ID.2/2004 of LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER: ------------ P.SHAJI, PANDARA KANDI HOUSE, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE-10. BY ADV. SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE KOZHIKODE SARVODAYA SANGH, KHADI GRAM, P.B.NO.216, KOZHIKODE-673001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 19342 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 7th day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P4 preliminary order, Ext.P5 award and Ext.P6 order refusing to set aside Ext.P5 ex parte award in I.D.No.2/2004 before the Labour, Kozhikode. Of course, the petitioner has his own reasons for seeking setting aside of Ext.P5 award which was ex parte one. In Ext.P5 giving elaborate reasons as to why the petition to set aside the ex parte order cannot be allowed, the application to set aside the ex parte award was dismissed. I am of opinion that even without going into the merits of Ext.P6, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed since the petitioner has no case that Ext.P4 preliminary order was ex parte. In fact it was a hotly contested matter and after considering the contentions of both the workman and the management, that Ext.P4 preliminary order was passed holding that the enquiry conducted against the petitioner was valid and proper, and the findings by the enquiry officer itself are supported by legal evidence adduced in the enquiry. In Ext.P4 order the Labour Court has given elaborate reasons for finding 2 the enquiry valid and proper. I do not find anything perverse whatsoever in the findings entered therein. That being so, the challenge against Ext.P4 is certainly unsustainable. Now the only question that remains to be considered is as to whether the punishment imposed on the workman is disproportionate to the gravity of the misconducts found to have been committed by the workman. There are two charges. The first is that the petitioner unauthorizedly removed the attendance register kept in the office. The second is that he committed misappropriation of an amount of Rs.1000/- of a customer. That customer had given evidence in support of the said charge. The Labour Court has on acceptable materials on record, found that the petitioner was guilty of both the charges of misconducts. Since the charges of misconducts are grave enough to warrant the punishment imposed on the petitioner, I do not think that by setting aside the ex parte order any useful purpose would be served. Therefore, I confirm Exts.P4 and P5 and dismiss the writ petition on merits. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 3