IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2009 / 6TH SRAVANA 1931 OP.No. 18638 of 2002(R) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M. KRISHNADAS, S/O. V. KRISHNAN NAIR, MYLATH HOUSE, KANATTUKARA, AYYANTHOL P.O., THRISSUR-680 003. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, VANAJA TEXTILES LIMITED, KURISHIKKARA P.O., THRISSUR. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF CHARGE SHET DT.9.2.98. P2: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE EMPLOYEES BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. P3: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT.5.3.98 ISSUED BY THE MANAGEMENT. P4: TRUE COPY OF LETTER SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE ENQUIRY OFFICER. P5: TRUE COPY OF DEPOSITION OF SRI.P.K.PRAKASAN NAIR BEFORE THE ENQUIRY OFFICER. P6: TRUE COPY OF DISMISSAL ORDER ISSUED BY THE MANAGEMENT TO THE PETITIONER. P7: TRUE COPY OF AWARD PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT IN I.D. NO.107/99 DT.6.1.2001. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... O.P. No.18638 of 2002 .................................................................... Dated this the 28th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT Heard counsel for the petitioner who is challenging Ext.P7 order of the Industrial Tribunal upholding the petitioner's order of dismissal by the management for the misconduct. On going through Ext.P7 award of the Industrial Tribunal and after hearing counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that the Industrial Tribunal has considered every contention raised by the petitioner and found that enquiry was conducted in a fair and reasonable manner giving adequate opportunity to the employee, who has cross- examined all the management witnesses and adduced his own evidence. It is the finding of the Industrial Tribunal that prior to the incident leading to dismissal of the petitioner, he was suspended for indiscipline on five occasions in the course of 5 years. In fact, the impugned action that led to his dismissal is the conscious closure of the outlet provided to cleaning machine which affected the product quality. A supervisory employee who is a witness to the misdeed of the petitioner, gave clear and convincing evidence which is not disproved by the petitioner. Since the enquiry is based on tenable evidence, the Industrial Tribunal refused to interfere with 2 the matter. In the circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere with the punishment sustained by the Industrial Tribunal. Consequently O.P. is dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms