IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2011 / 24TH POUSHA 1932 OP(LC).No. 482 of 2010(O) ------------------------- ID.10/2002 of LABOUR COURT, KANNUR .................... PETITIONERS -------------------- ISAKKI MUTHU .S, S/O.SHANMKUGHAN, AGED 35 YERAS, CHUNDALE ESTATE, CHUNDALE POST, CHUNDALE VILLAGE, ,VYTHIRI TALUK BY ADV. SMT.CELINE JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE MANAGER, CHUNDALE ESTATE, CHUNDALE POST,PIN-673123 2. THE GENERAL SECRETARY, PLANTATION EMPLOYEES UNION, PUNALUR P.O.,691305 3. LABOUR COURT, KANNUR-670001 BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R1 THIS OP (LABOUR COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- O.P. (LC) No.482 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Ext.P1 award passed by the Labour Court, Kannur on 27.12.2006 is under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner contends that Ext.P1 award was passed ex parte upholding his termination in service without affording him an opportunity to adduce evidence in support of his contentions. From the award, it is seen that the case before the Labour Court was posted initially on 23.6.2006 for evidence. On 26.10.2006, the petitioner submitted an application seeking adjournment on the ground that he is laid up with back ache. The case was accordingly adjourned to 16.11.2006. On that day, he sought adjournment by one month and the case was posted to 23.11.2006. On 23.11.2006, another application was filed seeking adjournment by two months. The said application was rejected, he was set ex parte and the case was posted to 29.11.2006 for the evidence of the management. The award discloses that the petitioner was repeatedly seeking adjournments and that adequate opportunity was afforded to him to tender evidence. Further, the Labour Court has noticed that the service of the petitioner was terminated for the reason that he did not produce the electrician's licence issued by the competent authority. O.P.(LC) No.482 of 2010 2 In such circumstances, I find no merit in the contention raised by the petitioner that Ext.P1 award was passed ex parte without affording him sufficient opportunity to put forward his contentions and to adduce evidence in support of his contentions. I, therefore, find no grounds to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.