IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2009 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 23888 of 2003(R) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- DEEPTHI DIAMONDS (INDIA) LTD., LAKSHI NIVAS, PALISSERRY, ANNAMMANADA P.O., REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR K RAVEEDNRANATHA MENON. BY MR.P.SANTHALINGAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADV. MR.S.SHARAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LABOUR DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, THRISSUR. 3. A.G. ANOOP KUMAR, ADIPARAMBIL HOUSE, MATHILAKAM P.O., THRISSUR. 4. N.V. SUBHASH, NEDUMURI HOUSE, P.O. MADAVANA WEST BAZAR, KODUNGALLUR. 5. K.K. SURESH, KANNOLIL HOUSE, ARATTUPUZHA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. 6. Y.A. ALI, YAKKODATH HOUSE, KONATHUKUNNU P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 7. L.K. MANOJ, LONASEDATH KALARIKKAL HOUSE, LOKAMALESWARAM, KODUNGALLUR. 8. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD. BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.ARAVINDA KUMAR BABU T.K. FOR R1 & R2 ADV. MR.P.RAMAKRISHNAN FOR R3 TO7 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.23888/2003 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DT. 15.3.98 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER AND WORKERS OF THE PETITIONERS COMPANY. P2:- COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.D5-31047/2001 DT. 19.11.01 SIGNED BY DY.TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, MUKUNDAPURAM. P3(a):- COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. 7.11.97 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P3(b):- COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. 7.11.97 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 7TH RESPONDENT. P3(c):- COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. 7.11.97 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT. P3(d):- COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. 7.11.07 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT. P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 23.7.98 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 6 WORKERS OF THE PETITIONERS COMPANY. P5:- COPY OF THE REPLY NO.IR(2) 4492/97 DT. 8.6.98 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER . P6:- COPY OF THE REPLY DT. 3.8.98 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P7:- COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.ID NO.122/99 & 19/2000 DT. 11.9.01 SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5 AND ANOTHER WORKER MR.T.S.PRASAD TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P8:- COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.IR(2) 1833/03 DT. 25.6.03 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P9:- COPY OF THE AWARD IN GAZETTE NOTIFICATION NO.40 DT. 8.10.02 BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE TSS V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- WPC. No.23888 OF 2003 ---------------------------------------- Dated, 17th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Challenging Ext.P9 award, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad in I.D.No. No.122/99 & 19/2000, the management preferred this writ petition. By the impugned award, the Tribunal has found that the finding of the enquiry officer that the workmen were guilty of the charges, is based on the evidence of witnesses and is correct, and the Tribunal declined to interfere with the findings of the enquiry officer and further held that the domestic enquiry held into the charge against the workmen is legal and valid. After having found that the charge against the workmen is legal and valid, while disposing of the reference, the Tribunal is of the opinion that no purpose will be served if a direction is issued for the reinstatement of the workmen in service. Such an observation was made by the Tribunal on the basis of the misconduct alleged and proved against the workmen. WPC 23888/03 -:2:- So the Tribunal, instead of reinstatement, ordered full backwages to the workmen. Thus the Tribunal directed the management to pay compensation to six workmen at the rate of two months wages for every completed year of their service. The above award is challenged in this writ petition by the management. 2. The main ground taken in this writ petition is to the effect that the petitioner company was taken over by the K.F.C. and K.S.I.D.C. and therefore, whatever claim by the workmen, has to be raised before the above financial institutions. It is also contended that the charge levelled against the workmen are very serious and the allegations raised against the workmen are based upon misconduct from their part. Therefore, according to the management, the allegations and charges are in accordance with standing orders of the company/establishment. It is also contended that considering the works undertaken by the company establishment, the workmen like persons cannot be entertained or employed in such establishment. It is WPC 23888/03 -:3:- also the case of the petitioner that the management has also brought to the notice of the Industrial Tribunal that the establishment is not functioning. 3. I have heard the leaned counsel for the petitioner and also the counsel for the respondents/workmen and the learned Government Pleader also. 4. At the outset, it is to be noted that the workmen, namely, the respondents 3 to 7 have not challenged Ext.P9 award in question. While exercising the powers vested upon the Tribunal under section 11A of the Act, though the Tribunal found that the finding of the enquiry officer regarding the guilt of the workmen as correct and the enquiry itself was held as legal and valid, the punishment of dismissal awarded against the workmen was set aside. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances involved in the case, though the workmen were found guilty, the Tribunal was of the opinion that it is not proper and no purpose will be served by ordering reinstatement of the workmen in service. Section 11A WPC 23888/03 -:4:- authorises the Tribunal to grant relief to the workmen instead of approving the order of dismissal or discharge, including award of any lesser punishment. In the present case, the Tribunal has already found that the establishment is not functioning and also the nature of allegations proved against the workmen is not warranting an order of reinstatement. It was in the above circumstances, the Tribunal ordered the management to pay compensation at the rate of two months wages for every completed year of their service, which according to me , is very reasonable and that such direction was issued in lieu of the punishment of dismissal passed against the workmen. Such an order is within the competency of the Tribunal. Therefore, no interference is warranted. In the result, I find no merit in the writ petition and, accordingly, the same is dismissed. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE WPC 23888/03 -:5:- kvm/- V.K.MOHANAN, J. O.P.No. JUDGMENT WPC 23888/03 -:6:- Dated:..