IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2011 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 23451 of 2005(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.J. MANU, KUNNUMPURATHU, CHERUKOL P.O., KOZHENCHERRY, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 650. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE LABOUR COURT OF QUILON. 2. CHERUKOL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.Q.488, CHERUKOL P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. ADV. SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY FOR R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.M.MANOJ FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C)No.23451/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES DATED 25.1.1991 EXT.P2. TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 25.2.1991. EXT.P3. TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 31.1.1994 EXT.R3(a) TRUE COPY OF ;THE REPORT DATED 27.1.1994 EXT.P4. TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN I.D.10 OF 1995 BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT DATED NIL EXT.P5. TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE MANAGEMENT DATED OCTOBER, 1995 EXT.P6. TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20.1.1995 ISSUED IN I.D.NO.10/1995 EXT.P7. TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD IN I.D.10/95 DATED 5TH MARCH, 2005 AND THE PRELIMINARY ORDER. / TRUE COPY / P.S.TO JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.23451 of 2005 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th March, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner a former employee of the second respondent bank, who was dismissed from service, has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P7 award passed by the Labour Court, Kollam in I.D.No.10 of 1995. The brief facts of the case are as follows. 2. The petitioner entered service as Salesman in the service of the second respondent bank on 1.5.1980. He was promoted as Junior Clerk on 1.4.1985 and as Senior Clerk on 1.5.1988. While in service as Senior Clerk in the second respondent bank he was suspended from service on 31.12.1990 and thereafter Ext.P1 memo of charges dated 25.1.1991 was served on him. The charges levelled against the petitioner were that (i) he continued to be a member in violation of rule 16(2)(e) of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Rules and secured many benefits, (ii) he misused his office and availed a vehicle loan of Rs.6,000/- on the security of a recurring deposit of Rs.450/- without the approval of the President of the bank or the Sub Committee of the bank; and W.P(C) NO.23451/2005 -:2:- (iii) he received the sum of Rs.260/- from Smt.Bhavani Amma, a member of the bank, on 11.7.1986 but failed to remit the said amount in the bank or to enter it in the day book or cash book and misappropriated the amount. The petitioner submitted Ext.P2 reply denying the charges. An enquiry was thereafter held. Based on the enquiry report a show cause notice was issued calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the punishment of dismissal should not be imposed on him. The Sub Committee of the bank that met on 27.1.1994 resolved as per Ext.P3(a) resolution to dismiss the petitioner from service with effect from 31.12.1990, the date on which he was placed under suspension. Ext.P3 order was thereupon passed on 31.1.1994 dismissing him from service with effect from 31.1.1994. 3. The petitioner unsuccessfully filed an appeal before the Managing Committee of the bank. He thereafter raised a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act which was referred to the Labour Court. Before the Labour Court the petitioner filed Ext.P4 claim statement and the second respondent bank filed Ext.P5 written statement. Based on the contentions raised by the petitioner the question whether the domestic enquiry was properly conducted was considered as a preliminary issue. By order passed on W.P(C) NO.23451/2005 -:3:- 1.1.2005 the Labour Court held that the domestic enquiry was properly held and the findings entered by the Enquiry Officer cannot be said to be perverse. Thereafter the Labour Court issued Ext.P6 summons informing the petitioner that the industrial dispute will be heard in the camp sitting at Pathanamthitta on 25.2.1995. The petitioner stated that though he had gone over to the Bar Association Hall, Pathanamthitta, the venue of the sitting, there was no camp sitting at Pathanamthitta and no further summons was issued. The writ petition was thereafter filed contending that without further notice, by Ext.P7 award passed on 5.3.2005 the Labour Court answered the reference by holding that the dismissal of the petitioner from service is legal and that he is not entitled to any relief against the management. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that after 25.2.1995, on which day there was no sitting, no notice had been given to him about the posting on 26.2.2005 and therefore the Labour Court erred in passing an ex parte award. The second respondent has been served and has entered appearance through counsel. But the second respondent has not till date filed a counter affidavit disputing the averment made by the petitioner that after 25.2.1995 no notice had been issued to the parties regarding the W.P(C) NO.23451/2005 -:4:- posting of the case. 4. I heard Smt.V.P.Sathi, learned counsel who appeared on behalf of the petitioner. I have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. The Labour Court has in the award passed on 5.3.2005 held that though the case was posted on 15.1.2005 and 26.2.2005 neither party appeared. It is also stated that on those days there was no representation on behalf of the management or the worker. Ext.P6, the summons issued from the Labour Court, Kollam to the petitioner and also to the second respondent, discloses that they were summoned to appear before the Labour Court in the camp sitting to be held in the Bar Association Hall, Pathanamthitta on 25.2.1995. However, in the award it is stated that when the case was posted on 26.2.2005 neither party appeared and there was no representation on their behalf. It is not evident from Ext.P7 award as to whether the posting on 26.2.2005 was in the camp sitting at Pathanamthitta or at Kollam. No material has been produced before this Court to rebut the petitioner's statement that the camp sitting was proposed to be held on 25.2.1995, that in fact it was not held and that no further notice was issued to the parties thereafter. In such circumstances I am persuaded to proceed on the basis that W.P(C) NO.23451/2005 -:5:- the petitioner was not put on notice regarding the posting of the case on 26.2.2005. It has therefore to be necessarily to be held that the award passed by the Labour Court, Kollam on 5.3.2005 cannot be sustained. In the result I allow the writ petition and quash Ext.P7 award passed by the Labour Court, Kollam in I.D.No.10 of 1995. The Labour Court, Kollam shall take back the dispute to file, issue notice to the parties and dispose of the same after affording them an opportunity of being heard expeditiously and in any event within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C).No.23451 of 2005 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 9th March, 2011