IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 26TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 5485 of 2008(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. KERALA STATE COIRFED EMPLOYEES CONGRESS (INTUC), COIRFED, ALAPPUZHA-12, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT A.A.SHUKKUR, (KURUMPELIL HOUSE, SEA VIEW WARD, ALAPPUZHA). 2. A.YACOB, MACHINE ASSISTANT, R.C.P.UNIT, COIRFED, ALAPPUZHA-12, (PANACHUVEEDU, LAJNATH WARD, ALAPPUZHA). BY ADV. SRI.K.KARTHIKEYA PANICKER SMT.DAYA K. PANICKER RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-01. 2. THE REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER, KOLLAM. 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE COIR MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. (COIRFED), ALAPPUZHA-12. 4. ADVOCATE CHERIAN KURUVILA, ENQUIRY OFFICER, S.M.S.BUILDING, THONDANKULANGARA, ALAPPUZHA. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.GEORGE MATHEW THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.5485 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned senior Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 as also standing counsel for the third respondent. Notice to the 4th respondent is dispensed with as unnecessary. 2. Espousing the cause of persons working in the R.C.P. unit of the third respondent, a writ petition leading to Ext.P4 judgment was filed in relation to the question as to whether those workmen are entitled to certain holidays and whether the management had acted contrary to law in treating the absence of workmen on those holidays as indiscipline. Ext.P4 judgment was issued directing the appropriate authority under the labour laws to initiate conciliation proceedings, failing which appropriate action had to follow in terms of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Following that judgment, Ext.P5 has been placed before the WPC.5485/08 Page numbers second respondent. As of now, the petitioners complain that by Ext.P6 issued after Ext.P4 judgment, disciplinary proceedings have been initiated by appointing an enquiry officer and ordering a domestic enquiry. 3. I am of the considered view that it is not in the province of this Court to step in and hold back disciplinary proceedings at least at the stage of a domestic enquiry, when the employer has decided to have such an enquiry. Merely because there is an enquiry, one cannot say that he is being harassed. This is because, even if the workmen in the case in hand ultimately loose their claim made in Ext.P5, they could turn round and accuse the management of taking any disciplinary action without any enquiry, though the fact situation could well be an admitted one. Therefore, while the disciplinary proceedings in the form of domestic enquiry could go on, having regard to the proceedings initiated as per Ext.P5, it would be inappropriate to impose any punishment on the workmen on the basis of allegations which form foundation of Ext.P5. WPC.5485/08 Page numbers For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is disposed of directing that while the impugned proceedings should go on and the domestic enquiry could conclude, there shall be no action taken for imposing any punishment, unless proceedings initiated as per Ext.P5 in terms of Ext.P4 judgment is concluded. The second respondent will also ensure that the issue being in a narrow coccus, the proceedings following Ext.P5 is expedited. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge kkb.