IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 5TH OCTOBER 2010 / 13TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 30741 of 2003(I) ------------------------ PETITIONER : ------------------ THE REGIONAL PRESIDENT, VIJAYA BANK WORKERS ORGANISATION, VIJAYA BANK, M.G. ROAD, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, VIJAYA BANK, PUTHENCHANTHAI, M.G. ROAD, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM. R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ..2/- WP(C).No. 30741 of 2003(I) -2- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE AWARD IN INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 11/99 DATED 2/1/2003 PASSED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C) No.30741 of 2003 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of October 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner Union espouses the cause of one P.K.Surendranathan, who was a part time sweeper of the respondent's bank. It would appear that the issue relating the validity of his removal from service with effect from 1.12.1997 was referred by the Government for adjudication, vide G.O.No.L-12012188/98(B-II) dated 28.2.99. Accordingly the reference was registered as I.D.No.11/99 on the file of the 2nd respondent Tribunal. While adjudicating the dispute, on 3.11.2002, request made by the Union was for adjournment to adduce evidence was rejected by the Tribunal. Then the case was posted to 24.12.2002 for evidence of the Management. The Management also sought adjournment and that request was W.P.(C) No.30741 of 2003 -: 2 :- also rejected. Thereafter on the ground that both sides did not adduce any evidence, the reference was closed and the Tribunal has passed Ext.P1 Award holding that the workmen is not entitled to any relief. In this writ petition filed on 25.7.2003 the Union is challenging the said Award. 2. In my view, the issue relating to the removal of the petitioner from service which occurred on 1.12.1997, has, by lapse of time, become a stale one. Therefore, it is not going to be advantageous for the parties to setting aside the award and revive the dispute and to order fresh adjudication at this distance of time. Therefore, I am not persuaded to entertain the challenge against the award. The writ petition fails and accordingly dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. Jvt