IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2008 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 7225 of 2005(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------------- B.SASIKUMAR, PROPRIETOR, JAYA TRANSPORTS, GURUVAYOOR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAVINDRAN (SR.) RESPONDENTS: ------------------ M.K.DEVADAS, EALOTHU HOUSE, KOLAMKARAPPADOM, P.O.FEROKE COLLAGE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. ADDL.R2: INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD (IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R2 AS PER ORDER DTD 19.10.07 IN I.A. 13824/07) BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 7225 of 2005 EXT.P1: COPY OF REGISTERED NOTICE DTD 28.6.1999. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD DTD 29.6.99. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REGISTERED NOTICE DTD 11/2/2000. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DTD 12.2.2000. EXT.P5: COPY OF ORDER DATED 10.10.2001. EXT.P6: COPY OF ORDER DATED 20.3.2001 ISSUED BY THE ENQUIRY OFFICER. EXT.P7: COPY OF ORDER DTD 7/4/2001 PASSED BY THE ENQUIRY OFFICER. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD 25.10.2000 FILED BEFORE THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 22.7.2000. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 28.8.2003 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE CLAIM STATEMENT DTD 3.11.2003 FILED BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT DTD 27/12/2003 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P13: COPY OF THE REJOINDER DATED 8/3/2004 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P14: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.9.2004 PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD. EXT.P15: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD 11.9.2007. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.7225 OF 2005 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the management in I.D. No.80/2003 before the Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad. In that I.D., the Tribunal passed Ext.P14 award, whereby the workman involved was directed to be reinstated with continuity of service and backwages. The petitioner submits that it is an ex-parte award and the petitioner could not take part in the proceedings only because of the reasons mentioned in paragraph 9 of the writ petition. The petitioner therefore seeks quashing of Ext.P14 and a direction to the Tribunal to re-adjudicate the dispute after affording the petitioner an opportunity to adduce evidence. 2. The learned counsel for the workman stoutly opposes the prayer of the petitioner. He points out that the petitioner had in fact appeared before the Tribunal and it is only from the stage of evidence the management remained absent and was declared ex-parte. He also submits that the reasons stated in paragraph 9 of the writ petition are not at all convincing. W.P.(c) No.7225/05 2 2. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. When it was pointed out to the counsel for the petitioner that the reasons stated in paragraph 9 of the writ petition are not convincing, he prayed that he may given another opportunity to contest on merits at least on terms. Taking a lenient view, I feel that the petitioner can be given another opportunity to adduce the matter on merits before the Tribunal, if he pays costs of the workman. Accordingly, I quash Ext.P14 award and direct the Tribunal to re-adjudicate the dispute after affording both sides opportunity to adduce evidence. 'Evidence' means only those evidence which are permissible under law. This shall be on condition that the petitioner pays an amount of Rs.5,000/- as costs to the 1st respondent workman within two weeks from today. Since the industrial dispute is of the year of 2003, the Tribunal shall pass final award in the industrial dispute within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c) No.7225/05 3