IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2008 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1929 OP.No. 9964 of 2002(J) ---------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M.V.GOPINATHAN, E.W.S. 716, GANDHINAGAR, KOCHI-682 020 BY ADV. SRI.H.B.SHENOY SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER(WCC) CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682 030 2. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER-GRADE I, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682 030 3. HOTEL YUVARANI, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 001 BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN SMT.T.C.KRISHNA GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.M.R.SREELATHA THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 9964/2002/J APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF REPORT NO.D-4076/92 DATED 22.1.1995 SUBMITTED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT. P2: COPY OF ORDER DATED 6.10.2000 PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT IN SAC NOS.19/92, 2/93, 6/94 AND 7/94. EXT. P3: COPY OF ORDER DATED 16.1.2002, PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT IN SAC NOS.19/92, 2/93, 6/94 AND 7/94. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE JP S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ======================= O.P. No. 9964 of 2002 (J) ======================= Dated this the 19th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner was a workman employed by the 3rd respondent in his hotel. He was suspended pending enquiry. He claimed subsistence allowance for various periods. In respect of the period from 27.2.91 to 5.8.93, Ext. P3 order has been passed by the 1st respondent restricting the claim of the petitioner for subsistence allowance only to the period from 27.6.92 to 27.7.92. This is on the basis that for the balance period the petitioner was gainfully employed elsewhere. Apparently this finding was entered on the basis of the deposition of a person who had allegedly employed the petitioner. According to the petitioner, that person was not competent to give evidence on behalf of the said employer and there was no acceptable proof to the effect that the petitioner was employed elsewhere. He also submits that while calculating wages, the food allowance to which the petitioner was eligible was not taken into account. O.P. No. 9964/2002/J -2- 2. I am not going into the merits of the contentions of the parties since I am inclined to remand the matter for violation of principles of natural justice. While passing Ext.P3 order, originally a report was forwarded by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent in the matter, which was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the 2nd respondent for fresh report. It is on the basis of the fresh report that Ext.P3 order has been passed. The petitioner raises a contention that petitioner has not been served with a copy of that report, without which he could not have effectively presented his case before the 1st respondent. 3. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner as also the counsel for the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent could not refute the averment of the petitioner that petitioner was not given a copy of the report based on which Ext.P3 order has been passed. That being so, Ext.P3 is clearly in violation of natural justice. Accordingly, Ext.P3 is quashed. The 1st respondent is directed to pass fresh orders in the matter after giving a copy of the report of the 2nd respondent on which Ext. P3 order has been passed, to the petitioner and after hearing both sides O.P. No. 9964/2002/J -3- afresh. Fresh orders shall be passed within 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The original petition is disposed of as above. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE jp