IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 13TH DECEMBER 2011 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 33262 of 2011(G) ----------------------------------------- ID.19/2005 of LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ LITTLE FLOWER HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE, P.B.NO.23, ANGAMALY-683 572, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.PAULSON C.VARGHESE SRI.BABY JOSEPH(KOCHI) RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. SECRETARY, LITTLE FLOWER EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, CENTRE OF INDIAN TRADE UNION(CITU), ANGAMALY-PIN-683 572. 2. LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM-PIN-682 031. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.33262/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE CHARGE MEMO DATED 25/01/2003 P2 COPY OF THE CHARGE MEMO DATED 24/9/2003 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER/MANAGEMENT. P3 COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 19/04/2004. P4 COPY OF THE CLAIM STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT LABOUR COURT. P5 COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE MANAGEMENT BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT LABOUR COURT. P6 COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY ORDER DATED 09/12/2009 PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT LABOUR COURT. P7 COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF MW1, MR.PURUSHOTHAMAN NAIR. P7(A) COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF MW2, MR.BAIJU PAULOSE. P(B) COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF MW3, MR.VARGHESE M.L. P8 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT OF THE EYE WITNESS MR.PURUSHOTHAMAN NAIR. P8(A) COPY OF THE TREATMENT CHART OF THE INJURED MR.ANOOP. P8(B) COPY OF THE COMPLAINT OF THE INJURED MR.ANOOP. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.33262 of 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Ext.P6 preliminary order passed by the Labour Court, Ernakulam on 9.12.2009 holding that the finding of the enquiry officer that the workman is guilty of the charges levelled against him in the charge sheet dated 6.10.2003 is not sustainable and setting aside the report of the enquiry officer in respect of that charge is under challenge in this writ petition. Ext.P6 order was passed on 9.12.2009. Though very many contentions have been raised regarding the merits of the findings in Ext.P6 order, there is no explanation for the long delay of two years in challenging Ext.P6. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Labour Court, Ernakulam was not holding its sittings till recently and that was the reason why Ext.P6 order was not challenged in time. In my considered opinion it is a very poor explanation for not challenging Ext.P6 in time. The petitioner has no case that it was prevented by sufficient cause from challenging Ext.P6 in this Court within a W.P(C).No.33262 of 2011 -:2:- period of three months from the date of Ext.P6 order or immediately thereafter. The petitioner has also not set out the date on which a copy of Ext.P6 order was applied for and obtained by it. Even assuming that the Labour Court, Ernakulam was not sitting after Ext.P6 order passed and it started holding sittings only recently, that would not constitute sufficient cause within the meaning of the said term occurring in section 5 of the Limitation Act. The mere fact that the Labour Court was not sitting is not a reason to hold that the petitioner can, without explaining the delay in challenging Ext.P6, maintain this writ petition. I accordingly decline jurisdiction and dismiss the writ petition. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C).No.33262 of 2011 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 13th December, 2011