IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2011 / 22ND POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 37434 of 2010(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- NEW INDIAN EXPRESS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (KERALA), REG.NO.07/06/09, EXPRESS HOUSE, KALOOR, KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE NEW INDIA EXPRESS, EXPRESS PUBLICATIONS (MADURAI) LTD., EXPRESS HOUSE, KALOOR, KOCHI-17, REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER, KERALA. 3. MR.A.SREEKUMAR, ENQUIRY OFFICER, FORMER CHIEF MANAGER (HR) FACT., RESIDING AT NO.2 HILL HEAVEN, BEHIND MILMA, EDAPPALLY NORTH.P.O., KOCHI-24. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.K.KRISHNA MENON (SC) BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.M.MANOJ. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.37434 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a trade union. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against Sri.K.Radhakrishna Pillai, a member of the petitioner trade union, who is presently employed as Assistant Executive (Accounts) in the establishment of the second respondent at Cochin. The third respondent is the enquiry officer appointed by the employer. The enquiry commenced on 9.11.2010. On that day, the petitioner sought the assistance of a legal practitioner to defend them in the enquiry. That request was declined. The petitioner thereafter sought the permission of the enquiry officer to appoint Sri.D.Balakrishna Panicker as the defence assistant. The management objected to the said request on the ground that Sri.D.Balakrishna Panicker is a worker and the petitioner who is in the managerial cadre should take the assistance of another employee in the same cadre. The enquiry officer thereupon issued Ext.P8 proceedings and adjourned the enquiry to 7.12.2010. He also directed the petitioner to find out another defence assistant or to challenge the decision of the enquiry officer. On 1.12.2010, the petitioner union submitted Ext.P9 representation before the Labour Commissioner wherein he requested the Labour Commissioner to interfere in the matter and to direct the W.P.(C) No.37434 of 2010 2 management either to permit him to avail the services of a lawyer or in the alternative to accept Sri.D.Balakrishna Panicker as the defence assistant. He thereafter submitted Ext.P10 request before the Enquiry officer wherein he sought an adjournment of the enquiry till a decision is taken by the Labour Commissioner on Ext.P9 representation. The enquiry officer adjourned the enquiry to 17.12.2010. The petitioner did not participate in the enquiry. In the meanwhile, this writ petition was filed on 15.12.2010 seeking a direction to the Labour Commissioner to consider Ext.P9 and take an appropriate decision thereon within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the respondents to keep in abeyance the enquiry proceedings initiated against Sri.K.Radhakrishna Pillai, till orders are passed on Ext.P9 representation. 2. When the writ petition came up for hearing today, Sri.V.K.Krishna Menon, the learned standing counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted, on instructions, that the enquiry officer concluded the enquiry on 17.12.2010 and has submitted a report. The learned standing counsel submitted that in such circumstances the remedy of the employee or the petitioner union, if the outcome of W.P.(C) No.37434 of 2010 3 the enquiry is against the employee, is to challenge the order passed in the disciplinary proceedings before the appropriate forum. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the fact that the enquiry officer has concluded the enquiry and submitted a report. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that no orders are called for in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly closed reserving liberty with the petitioner and the employee to challenge the orders, if any, passed pursuant to the enquiry in other appropriate proceedings. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.