Dismissed

Micro Meditex Pvt. Ltd. v. Labour Court, Ernakulam

Kerala HC5 Apr 2016OP(LC)/32/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a preliminary Labour Court order that set aside an enquiry for lack of formal charges. The Court held that such preliminary orders are interlocutory and should be challenged along with the final Award, not piecemeal, and found no perversity justifying immediate intervention.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with leave to challenge the preliminary order at the stage of appeal against the final Award.

Micro Meditex Pvt. Ltd. Vs Labour Court… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2016/16TH CHAITHRA, 1938

¶5

OP(LC).No. 32 of 2015 (O)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN ID 79/2014 of LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 2907-2015

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

MICRO MEDITEX PVT. LTD,

¶9

REPRESENTED BY SRI.A.M.NARAYANAN,MANAGING DIRECTOR, NEAR CARMEL HOSPITAL, ASHOKAPURAM, ALUVA 683101.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.P.RAVINDRA NATH

¶11

SRI.IMAM GRIGORIOS KARAT

¶12

RESPONDENT:

¶13

LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT ROAD,ERNAKULAM-31.

¶14

T.P.NARAYANAN NAMBIAR, FORMER SALES MANAGER, MICRO MEDITEX PVT.LTD., RESIDING AT SREE KRISHNA KRIPA, PUTHIYAKAVU,TRIPUNITHURA 682301.

¶15

R2 BY ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR

¶16

R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.MANU GOVIND R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BABY THOMAS

¶17

THIS OP (LABOUR COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-042016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

OP(LC).No. 32 of 2015 (O)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶21

EXT:P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 17.07.2011.

¶22

EXT:P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 29.07.2011.

¶23

EXT:P3: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 27.09.2011.

¶24

EXT:P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 30.09.2011.

¶25

EXT:P5: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES AND STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS

¶26

EXT:P6 TRUE COY OF THE REPLY DATED 3.1.2012.

¶27

EXT:P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 23.04.2014.

¶28

EXT:P8 TRUE COY OF THE I.D.NO.79/2014.

¶29

EXT:P9 TRUE COY OF THE WRITTEN STATMENT OF THE PETITIONER DATED 16.01.2015.

¶30

EXT:P10 TRUE COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY ORDER DATED 29.07.2015 IN I.D.NO.79 OF 2014.

¶31

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS

NIL

/True Copy/

P.A. to Judge

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶36

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶37

O.P.(LC).No.32 of 2015

¶38

= = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 5^th day of April, 2016

¶39

JUDGMENT

¶40

This writ petition is filed challenging Exhibit P10 preliminary order of the Labour Court in I.D.No.79 of 2014. The point urged is that the 2^nd respondent was a former Sales Manager of the petitioner establishment and would not come within the definition of 'workman' under the I.D.Act. This contention was considered by the Labour Court and found that the 2^nd respondent was a workman and the contentions to the contrary are frivolous. Thereafter, on the ground that no formal charges had been framed in the enquiry, the enquiry conducted was held to be vitiated and the same was set aside. This order is under challenge in the writ petition.

¶41

Heard Sri.N.Krishna Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.A.Jayasankar, learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent.

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in case the findings of the Labour Court, even at the preliminary stage, are found to be perverse, the management can raise a challenge to

¶43

O.P.(LC).No.32/15

¶44

¶45

the preliminary order. The learned counsel relies on the decision of this Court reported in St.Thomas Mission Hospital v. State of Kerala and Another [2007(1) KHC 583]. It is further contended that the said decision is also an authority for the proposition that a formal memo of charges is not always required to be framed and the absence of a formal charge will not vitiate the enquiry. The Division Bench had held that all that is required to be done by the management is to inform the delinquent workman as to the allegations of misconduct against him on which the management proposes to conduct the enquiry and the enquiry should be into those allegations of misconduct.

¶46

The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would,

¶47

on the other hand, submit that the preliminary order is not amenable to challenge before this Court, as this will only lead to protraction of proceedings and defeat the interest of the workman. The non furnishing of a definite memo of charges had rendered it impossible for the workman to effectively defend his case in the enquiry. The preliminary order is, therefore, perfectly legal and sustainable, it is submitted. It is further

¶48

O.P.(LC).No.32/15

¶49

¶50

submitted that the Enquiry Officer was an Advocate and the refusal to allow the workman to avail the aid of a legally trained person to defend his case had also vitiated the proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on decision of the Apex Court in Professor Ramesh Chandra v. University of Delhi and others [2015 KHC 4086] in support of his contention.

¶51

It has been repeatedly held by this Court as well as the Apex Court that preliminary orders and proceedings of the Labour Court should not be challenged on a piecemeal basis leading to protraction of proceedings. The preliminary order is also amenable to challenge before this Court at the stage of challenge to the Award. The Apex Court has, in Cooper Engineering Ltd. v.P.P.Munde [1975 (2) SCC 661] and in several later decisions, held that the High Court should not interfere with preliminary order of Labour Court, since such orders are capable of being challenged along with the Award.

¶52

Having gone through the pleadings and the materials on record

¶53

O.P.(LC).No.32/15

¶54

¶55

and considering the contentions advanced on either side, I am unable to find that Exhibit P10 order is of such a perverse nature as to justify the invocation of the jurisdiction of this Court at the stage of the proceedings. The contention raised by the management that the dispute raised is not maintainable, as the employee was not a workman within the purview of the Act, was considered by the Labour Court and found against. The further contention that the non framing of formal charges was not fatal to the enquiry is definitely a point which can be urged by the petitioner after the proceedings are terminated. Exhibit P10 being a preliminary order will be open to challenge at the stage when a challenge is raised to the Award. Reserving such right, this writ petition is dismissed.

¶56

sd/-

¶57

Anu Sivaraman, Judge

¶58

Micro Meditex Pvt. Ltd. v. Labour Court, Ernakulam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Micro Meditex Pvt. Ltd. v. Labour Court, Ernakulam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.v.Abraham Vs the Secretary, Pala Municipality

Muraleedharan Nair Vs Baburaj

Muhammed Kunhi Vs the Kerala Khadi and Village Inds.Board

Philip Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Tom.T.Joseph Vs Ks.E.B.

Vijayan Vs Kadukutty Grama Panchayat