IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER TUESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 25TH BHADRA 1930 WA.No. 1355 of 2008 ---------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.3579/1999 Dated 01/11/2007 .................... APPELLANT: (PETITIONER): ---------------------------------------- THE CHERUPU THOZHILALI UNION, CITU FEROKE AREA COMMITTEE, C/O.TILE WORKERS UNION OFFICE, CHERUVANNOOR, FEROKE P.O REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: (RESPONDENTS:) ----------------------------------------------- 1. THE LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE MANAGER, RADIENT MOULDS AND COMPOUNDS PVT.LTD., KOLLATHARA P.O. CALICUT. R1 - BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA R2 - BY ADV. SRI.E.K.MADHAVAN SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L. DATTU, C.J. & A.K. BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No.1355 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of September, 2008 Judgment H.L. Dattu, C. J: The Union representing the workmen had filed W.P.(C).No.3579/1999, inter alia, calling in question the correctness or otherwise of Ext.P1 award passed by the Labour Court, Kozhikode. The learned Single Judge has rejected the wrt petition. 2. The facts in nut shell are: The workmen were working in the respondent factory which is engaged in the manufacture of foot wears. 3. Alleging that the workmen had committed theft of 4 pairs of foot wear from the factory premises on 24/09/1998, the management had issued a show cause notice to the workmen, inter alia, directing them to show cause why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against them and further why they should not be kept under suspension in contemplation of the departmental enquiry proceedings. 4. After receipt of the show cause notice, the workmen had filed their reply, inter alia, denying the allegations made in the show cause notice and requesting the management not to give effect to their thinking of keeping them under suspension pending departmental enquiry. WA.1355/08 2 5. The management was not satisfied with the explanation so offered and therefore after keeping the workmen under suspension, had issued a charge memo, inter alia, alleging that on 24/9/98 they had committed a theft of 4 pairs of foot wear costing around Rs.100/- and thereby have committed a grave misconduct and their continuation in the establishment is not in the interest of the management. 6. The charge memo was also replied by the workmen. The disciplinary authority was not satisfied with the explanation offered by the workmen and therefore had appointed an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the allegations made in the charge memo. 7. Before the Enquiry Officer, the management had adduced the evidence of MW.1 to MW.3. The Enquiry Officer has permitted the workmen to cross examine the management witnesses. In the enquiry proceedings the workmen had not requested the Enquiry Officer to adjourn the proceedings, in or+-der to facilitate them to obtain copies of the deposition of the witnesses, so that they could effectively cross examine the management witnesses. The whole enquiry was completed by the Enquiry Officer within a day and thereafter he had submitted a report to the disciplinary authority of the respondent management. 8. The disciplinary authority of the respondent management, after accepting the report of the Enquiry Officer, had passed an order dismissing the workmen from the service of the respondent management. WA.1355/08 3 9. The Union representing the workmen, had filed a Claim Petition before the Labour court and the same was numbered as I.D.92 of 1993. The respondent had filed their counter claim before the Labour Court. 10. The Labour Court had framed the preliminary issue. The issue was, whether the domestic enquiry that was held by the respondent management is fair and proper? 11. After detailed consideration of the evidence on record, the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the domestic enquiry that was held was fair and proper and thereafter has proceeded to decide the lis between the parties. 12. The Labour Court, after going through the entire evidence that was recorded by the Enquiry Officer, after carefully perusing the report of the Enquiry Officer and the orders passed by the disciplinary authority has come to the conclusion that the disciplinary authority of the respondent management is justified in imposing a punishment of dismissal from service, however directed the management to pay a sum of Rs.7,500/- as compensation in lieu of reinstatement into service. 13. The Union as well as the management, being aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court, had filed O.P.No.3579/1999 and 7873/1999 respectively. 14. The management had confined its Original Petition only to the direction issued by the Labour Court directing the management to pay a sum of Rs.7,500/- WA.1355/08 4 as compensation in lieu of reinstatement of the workmen into service. 15. The workmen had questioned the award passed by the Labour Court mainly on two issues, namely, that the finding of the Labour Court on the preliminary issue, that the domestic enquiry that was held was fair and proper is incorrect; secondly it had questioned the award passed by the Labour Court on the ground that sufficient opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the workmen. 16. The learned single Judge after going through the entire evidence that was adduced by the witnesses of the respondent management before the Labour Court and also after referring to the findings of the Labour Court on the preliminary issue as well as on merits of the case has come to the conclusion that the findings of the Labour Court is based on the evidence adduced by the parties and further the findings and the conclusion reached by the Labour Court is neither perverse nor capricious and therefore, the award passed by the Labour Court does not call for interference. 17. Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned single Judge, the Union is before us in this Writ Appeal. Sri.P.Ramakrishnan learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the Labour Court was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the enquiry that was held is fair and proper for the reason that the workmen were not afforded sufficient opportunity to cross examine the management witnesses, and secondly the learned counsel would submit that the enquiry proceedings was completed by the Enquiry Officer in just WA.1355/08 5 a day's time and therefore the entire enquiry proceedings are vitiated. According to the learned counsel, these issues have not been properly considered by the learned single Judge. 18. We do see any merit in the submissions made by Sri. Ramakrishnan, learned counsel for the appellant. The learned single Judge, while answering the aforesaid issues raised by Sri.Ramakrishnan, has extracted the evidence that was recorded by the Enquiry Officer and also has come to the conclusion that the workmen had cross examined all the management witnesses. Further, he has observed in his order that at no point of time the workman had sought for an adjournment of the matter on the ground that they require the copies of the deposition of the management witnesses to effectively cross examine those witnesses. 19. The learned single Judge has further come to the conclusion that the finding of the Labour Court is not perverse and has further stated that it is only if the finding of the Labour Court is perverse, then only the writ court can entertain a petition against an award passed by the Labour Court. 20. We have also gone through the evidence that was adduced by the management witnesses. In the enquiry proceedings at no point of time the workmen had sought for any accommodation/adjournment for cross-examination of the management witnesses. They have not even asked for supply of the copies of the deposition of the management witnesses. Since the workmen had WA.1355/08 6 effectively cross-examined the management witnesses, the Enquiry Officer has completed the proceedings just in a day's time and in our view, merely because the Enquiry Officer has completed the enquiry proceedings within a day's time, it cannot be said that the enquiry proceedings are either irregular or improper. 21. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this appeal and accordingly while confirming the findings and the conclusions reached by the learned single Judge, we reject this writ appeal. Ordered accordingly. H.L. DATTU Chief Justice A.K. BASHEER Judge an/dk.