IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 19TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 21638 of 2003(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KUNJUBAVA, S/O. P.K.MOHAMMED, RAHMANIA HOUSE, KAKKI JUNCTION, VANIPERIYAR. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-14. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, TROPICAL PLANTATIONS LTD., KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.H.B.SHENOY FOR R2 SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.9.2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). No. 21638/2003 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF THE AWARD DTD.30.11.2002 BY R1 IN I.D.NO.78/1996. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.21638 of 2003 ================== Dated this the 10th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T The workman in I.D.No.78/1996 before the Labour Court, Ernakulam, is the petitioner herein. He is challenging Ext.P1 award passed by the Labour Court in that I.D. The issue referred for adjudication was: “Whether the dismissal of Sri.Kunjibava and Paramsivan, workman (sic) in the estate is legal and justifiable? If not, what relief they are entitled to?” 2. Since the petitioner-workman was dismissed from service after conducting a domestic enquiry, the Labour Court considered the validity of that enquiry and found that the enquiry was conducted in strict compliance with the principles of natural justice and that the findings in the enquiry were supported by legal evidence adduced in the enquiry. Thereafter, the Labour Court considered the question of proportionality of punishment imposed by the management on the workman for the proved misconduct. After considering the fact that the charge proved against the petitioner is that of theft of coffee berries belonging to the management, taking a lenient view, the Labour Court converted the punishment of dismissal into one of discharge. The petitioner is challenging the same in this writ petition. 3. According to the petitioner, the findings in the award are perverse and, therefore, unsustainable. 4. I have gone through the award. In the award, the entire w.p.c.21638/03 2 evidence has been discussed at length and the Labour Court found that the findings in the enquiry are supported by valid evidence adduced in the enquiry. The petitioner could not produce any material to show that the enquiry was unsustainable for any reason. In fact the enquiry officer did not even permit the presenting officer of the management to cross examine the witnesses examined on behalf of the workman. Even then, the evidence adduced by the management was found sufficient to find the workman guilty of the misconduct. The petitioner also could not point out any circumstances to show that the findings arrived at on the question of misconduct are in any way perverse. 5. The misconduct proved against the petitioner is that of theft of coffee berries belonging to the management, which is a very serious misconduct which in fact warrants the punishment of dismissal from service. The Labour Court took a lenient view and converted the punishment into that of discharge so that the workman would get terminal benefits. The petitioner could not have asked for more. He should be thankful to the management for not challenging the interference on the punishment by the Labour Court. Therefore, there is no merit in the challenge against Ext.P1 award. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.21638/03 3