IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2009 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 29094 of 2009(F) -------------------------- ID.13/2007 of LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- METROPOLITAN ENGINEERING CO. LTD., P.B.NO.6, WEST, THAMPANOOR, TRIVANDRUM, REP. BY MR.JOSMON.M.D., MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., HOLDING ADDITIONAL CHARGE. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.V.J.ANAND RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SRI. R.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SREEPADMAM EDAKKODU, NEMOM.P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-20. 2. THE LABOUR COURT KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.K.B.PRADEEP FOR R1 GOVT. PLEADER SRI. MOHAMMED HASHIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 29094/2009. ------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY GOVT. ORDER DT. 6-9-2003. EXT.P2 NOTICE DT. 29-9-2003. EXT.P3 TERMINATION ORDER DT. 9-10-2003. EXT.P4 AWARD IN I.D.NO. 13/2007 DT. 29-2-2008. EXT.P5 JUDGMENT IN W.P(C) NO. 22589/2008 DST. 2-9-2008. EXT.P6 NOTICE DT. 29-6-2009. EXT.P7 AWARD IN I.D.NO. 13/2007 DT. 5-11-2008. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 29094 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 27th October, 2009. J U D G M E N T This is the second time the petitioner is approaching this Court to set aside ex parte award passed by the Labour Court, Kollam in I.D.No. 13/2007. Earlier, an ex parte award passed in that I.D was set aside by me by Ext. P5 order on condition that the petitioner pays an amount of Rs. 7500/- as costs to the workman on the first posting date before the Labour Court after remand.. The Labour Court chose to issue notice to the petitioner management, which was returned unclaimed, which was treated as refusal to accept notice and the Labour Court passed Ext. P7 ex parte award again. The petitioner challenges Ext. P7 award in this writ petition. 2. According to the petitioner, the notice did not reach the petitioner insofar as the notice was in the address of the establishment which was closed. He further points out that for implementing the directions in the impugned award, a claim petition was filed by the workman as C.P. No. 25/2009, in which summons was issued to the petitioner in the correct address. According to the petitioner, the fact that the establishment was closed was known to the workman as well as the Labour Court and therefore the Labour Court should have issued notice in the correct address as done in Ext. P6 summons in C.P.No. 25/2009. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “(i) Call for the records of the case leading to Ext. P7 award of the 2nd respondent in I.D.No. 13/2007 and to quash the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari; (ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to consider the matter afresh and in accordance with law; (iii) to issue an ad interim order staying the operation and W.P.C. No. 29094/09 -: 2 :- implementation of Ext. P7 award of the 2nd respondent in I.D.No. 13/200, pending disposal of the writ petition.” 3. The workman stoutly opposes the prayers of the petitioner. According to him, nothing prevented the management from ascertaining from the Labour Court as to the next date of posting, which would not have been the prudent thing to do, especially when the management had already suffered an ex parte award, which was set aside by this Court on terms. The learned counsel for the workman points out that the poor workman should not be made to undergo the travails of another litigation by remanding the matter again. 4. I have considered the arguments of both parties. 5. I am not at all satisfied with the conduct of the petitioner- management. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the workman, after remand, they had a duty to ascertain from the Labour Court the date of the next posting of the I.D, which, admittedly, the petitioner has not cared to do. Even then, I am not inclined to hold that that there was any deliberate negligence on the part of the petitioner in appearing before the Labour Court. Admittedly, the Labour Court had chosen to issue notice in an address in which summons could not have been served on the petitioner. Therefore, I am inclined to set aside Ext. P7 ex parte award on that ground. But, that can only be on terms. The petitioner would certainly have to pay cost to the workman for the same. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: Ext. P7 award is quashed. As a condition for quashing the award, the petitioner shall pay to the workman an amount of Rs. 15,000/- including the Rs. 7500/- as costs awarded by Ext. P5 judgment. The parties shall appear before the Thiruvananthapuram W.P.C. No. 29094/09 -: 3 :- camp sitting of the Labour Court, Kollam on 26-11-2009, on which date, the petitioner shall pay to the workman the costs of Rs. 15,000/-. Thereafter, the Tribunal shall give an opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence and pass fresh award. The fresh award shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four months from 26-11-2009. If the petitioner does not pay the amount of Rs. 15,000/-, the petitioner would not be entitled to the benefit of this judgment and the writ petition would stand dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/