IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2009 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 16011 of 2009(V) -------------------------------------- ID.NO.14/2007 OF LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- T.K.DILIP KUMAR,S/O.LATE T.K.RAMDAS, AGED 57 YEARS,PROPRIETOR,SANGAM THEATRE, MENJANNIAM AMSOM AND DESOM,QUILANDY TALUK. BY ADVS. MR.C.S.MANU, MR.S.K.PREMRAJ, MR.ABHILASH AKBAR, MR.T.B.SIVAPRASAD. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. NARAYANIKUTTY,W/O.K.SIVASANKARAN NAIR, AGED NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,ROSE VILLA, MENJANNIAM AMSOM AND DESOM,QUILANDY TALUK. 2. SAJITH KUMAR,S/O.K.SIVASANKARAN NAIR, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,ROSE VILLA, MENJANNIAM AMSOM AND DESOM,QUILANDY TALUK. 3. SUJATHA,W/O.K.SIVASANKARAN NAIR, AGED 50 YEARS,THODAMKOTTU HOUSE,NOCHAD VILLAGE, CHENOLY DESOM,QUILANDY TALUK. 4. SANAL KUMAR,S/O.K.SIVASANKARAN NAIR, AGED 29 YEARS,THODAMKOTTU HOUSE, NOCHAD VILLAGE, CHENOLY DESOM, QUILANDY TALUK. 5. REKHA,D/O.K.SIVASANKARAN NAIR,AGED 24 YEARS,THODAMKOTTYU HOUSE,NOCHAD VILLAGE,CHENOLY DESOM,QUILANDY TALUK. 6. SOORAJ,S/O.K.SIVASANKARAN NAIR, AGED 23 YEARS,THODAMKOTTU HOUSE,NOCHAD VILLAGE, CHENOLY DESOM,QUILANDY TALUK. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No. 16011 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 15th June,2009 J U D G M E N T The predecessor in interest of the respondents herein one Sivasankaran Nair who was employed by the Management of the Sangham Theatre, owned by the petitioner complained of termination of his services. He moved the District Labour Officer and thereafter ID No.14/07 came to be referred to the Labour Court. It seems that Sivasankarankutty Nair had filed an affidavit in lieu of examination in chief. The Management sought to defer cross-examination. Before it could be done the workman died. Petitioner then moved an application for review of the earlier order by which the Tribunal had recorded that the Management had sought for deferment of cross examination. The said application was dismissed as per Exhibit-P10 essentially on the ground that the Management can adduce evidence its own and cross examine any one of the the legal heirs of the workman, if W.P ( C) No. 16011 of 2009 2 they examine themselves before the Tribunal. The probative value of the chief examination or the affidavit sworn to by the workman will have to be finally decided by the Tribunal and obviously nothing stands in the way of the petitioner adducing evidences to the contra. The view taken by the Tribunal that the management may discharge the burden cast on it by rebutting the evidence adduced by the workman ( affidavit filed by the workman alone) cannot be considered as per verse. At any rate, Exhibit-P10 order makes it clear that the Tribunal has no confusion on the aspect. Management evidence is yet to be adduced and the probative value of the same will have to be considered in accordance with law. 2. Yet another application moved by the petitioner is to summon certain records relating to deceased Sivasankaran Nair from the office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. It seems that the Management had moved an application before the Employees Provident Fund Commissioner under the Right to Information Act and the same was denied. The Tribunal W.P ( C) No. 16011 of 2009 3 took the view, on motion being made to call for the records that the petitioner should exhaust his remedies under the Right to Information Act. The said view has been challenged by the petitioner. If the parties seek to summon certain documents, the said application cannot be disposed of citing that they will have a right only after exhausting their remedies under the Right to Information Act. It will always be open to the petitioner to cite a competent official as a witness and then seek to get the documents summoned. But I am not inclined to interfere with Exhibit P16 orders challenged in the writ petition, Exhibit P16 being the order dismissing the petitioner's application for summoning certain papers relating to late Sivasankaran Nair, at this stage during the pendency of I.D No.14 of 2007. The petitioner is entitled to move the Tribunal for summoning a competent person from the office of the Provident Fund Commissioner for taking appropriate steps for production of the documents. He is also entitled to challenge the correctness of Exhibits P10 and P16 orders if the final award is against him. W.P ( C) No. 16011 of 2009 4 Subject to the above clarifications, the writ petition is disposed of. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No. 16011 of 2009 5 W.P ( C) No. 16011 of 2009 6 W.P ( C) No. 16011 of 2009 7