IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 24TH AUGUST 2009 / 2ND BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 23585 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- GENERAL SECRETARY, KOZHIKODE MOTOR & ENGINEERING MAZDOOR SANGHAM (BMS) VELLODI BUILDING KALLAI ROAD, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH SRI.BINU PAUL SRI.T.V.VINU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. GENERAL MANAGER, INDUS MOTOR CO. PVT.LTD CORPORATE OFFICE, M.G.ROAD, THEVARA, ERNAKULAM. 2. LABOUR COURT KOZHIKODE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ....................... W.P.(C).23585/2009 ....................... Dated this the 24th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext.P10 preliminary order passed by the Labour Court holding that the domestic enquiry held against the workman in question was conducted fairly and properly and by observing all the principles of natural justice and after providing the delinquent workman a fair chance for defending the charges against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order is patently unsustainable for more than one reason. It is pointed out that the charges were not served on the delinquent worker, proper enquiry was not conducted and documents were not marked. In fact the enquiry was completely vitiated. 2. I would have considered the contentions as regards the merits of the findings given by the Labour court on the sustainability of the domestic enquiry, had such challenge been mounted after an award is passed in this regard. At this stage, I am not inclined to consider this contention because proceedings before the Labour Court are still pending. W.P.(C).23585/09 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the light of Ext.P10 order, Presiding Officer of the Labour Court would thereafter, be inclined only to consider the question of proportionality of the punishment and there may not be an effective opportunity to the petitioner to independently show that the action taken by the Management is unsustainable. I find no basis for apprehension. Even if the domestic enquiry is held to be valid, it does not preclude the workmen to show that the punishment imposed by the Management is unsustainable. The Tribunal is entitled to take its view under Section 11A of the I.D.Act. This opportunity shall definitely be offered to the petitioner. Reserving the liberty of the petitioner to challenge the correctness of the findings in Ext.P10, if it becomes essential at a later point of time and subject to the observations made above, writ petition is disposed of. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs