IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2008 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 30316 of 2004(H) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- K.C.SADASIVAN, CODE NO.109, MALABAR CEMENTS LTD., WALAYAR. BY ADV. SRI.K.J.JOSE SRI.V.C.JAMES SRI.PAUL JOSE RESPONDENT: ------------------------ MALABAR CEMENTS LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, WALAYAR 678 624. BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.30316/2004 H APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET DTD. 17/04/90. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET DTD. 20/04/90. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 4/5/90 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 11/06/90 TO THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE RESPONDENT COMPANY. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE MANAGING DIRECTOR DTD. 12/06/90 TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE COVER WITH THE POSTAL SEAL DTD. 15/06/90. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE ENQUIRY OFFICER DTD. 2/7/90 TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE DOMESTIC ENQUIRY REPORT OF THE ENQUIRY OFFICER DTD. 26/07/90. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE AWARD OF THE KOZHIKODE LABOUR TRIBUNAL ON 15/05/2000. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER DTD. 10/08/04 TO THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE PAY SLIP OF THE PETITIONER DURING THE MONTH OF AUGUST 2004. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.30316 OF 2004 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Aggrieved by Ext.P9 award passed by the Labour Court, Kozhikode in I.D.No.52/95, the workman involved in the industrial dispute has come with this writ petition. The issue referred for adjudication was the validity of the dismissal of the workman from service. Since the workman was dismissed after conducting a domestic enquiry, the validity of the enquiry was considered as a preliminary point and the Labour Court held that the enquiry conducted against the workman was legally valid and proper. Thereafter, the Tribunal went on to find whether the findings are supported by legal evidence. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the evidence of MW1 to MW6 and Exts.M1 to M13 would prove the charges leveled against the petitioner. However, exercising powers under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court interfered with the punishment imposed on the petitioner and directed the management to reinstate him with continuity of service but without backwages. W.P.(c)No.30316/04 2 That is under challenge before me. As far as the validity of the enquiry is concerned, the petitioner has not chosen to challenge the preliminary order. The same is not even produced before me. Therefore, I am not inclined to consider the contentions raised in the writ petition against the preliminary order. Regarding the question as to whether the charges of misconduct against the workman were proved with sufficient evidence in the enquiry, I have gone through Ext.P9 award. In the same the Labour Court has elaborately discussed the evidence adduced before the enquiry officer and came to the finding that the evidence of MW1 to MW6 and Exts.M1 to M13 are sufficient to prove the charges levelled against the workman. I do not find anything perverse in such findings, without which I cannot interfere with those findings of fact. 2. Now the only remaining question as to whether denial of backwages to the workman is justified in so far as the Labour Court has interfered with the punishment and directed reinstatement of the workman which the management has not challenged. The charges leveled against the workman have been narrated in the award as follows: W.P.(c)No.30316/04 3 “On 9.4.1999 in shift, you were allotted wagon Drill (No.7) for operation. AT about 12'O clock in the night, Manager (Planning & Technical Services) along with Personnel & Welfare Officer reached the site for inspection of various operation points. It was observed that you disappeared from the site of operation of the drill keeping the drill working unattended. The two officers waited there about 25 minutes waiting your return and then they want near the drill. While approaching the drill, they found that you were chitchatting with other two members facing opposite to the drill at about 50 feet away from the drill. The officers came near to your and the following conservation took place: W.P.(c)No.30316/04 4 I am satisfied that the same is sufficient even for imposing a punishment of dismissal. However, since the management has not chosen to challenge the same, I need not consider the same. That being so, I cannot find fault with the Labour Court in denying backwages to the workman. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.30316/04 5