Disposed

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

Kerala HC23 Jun 2016RP/486/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court admitted a review petition concerning a Labour Court judgment. The Court held that statements implying the second respondent was not a workman were unsupported by specific findings in the preliminary order and deleted these sentences from the impugned judgment.

What did the court decide?

The judgment was ordered to be modified by deleting the opening paragraph and second sentence of paragraph six which inaccurately stated the Labour Court's findings.

Micro Medited Pvt. Ltd. Vs Labour Court, Ernakulam — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2016/2ND ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

RP.No. 486 of 2016 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP(LC). NO.32/2015 DATED 05-04-2016.

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶8

MICRO MEDITEX PVT. LTD., REPRESENTED BY SRI.A.M. NARAYANAN, MANAGING DIRECTOR, NEAR CARMEL HOSPITAL, ASHOKAPURAM, ALUVA -683 101.

¶9

BY SRI.S.RAMESH BABU, SENIOR ADVOCATE. ADVS. SRI.P.RAVINDRA NATH, SRI.IMAM GRIGORIOS KARAT.

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. THE LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT ROAD, ERNAKULAM,

¶12

2. T.P. NARAYANAN NAMBIAR, FORMER SALES MANAGER, MICRO MEDITEX PVT. LTD., RESIDING AT SREE KRISHNA KRIPA, PUTHIYAKAVU, THRIPUNITHURA-682 301.

¶13

R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.JIBU P.THOMAS. R2 BY ADVS. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR, SRI.MANU GOVIND, SRI.ASHWIN SETHUMADHAVAN, SRI.S.SABARINADH.

¶14

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

rs.

¶16

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶17

...............................................................

¶18

REVIEW PETITION No. 486 OF 2016 ................................................................ Dated this the 23^rd day of June, 2016

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The review petition is admitted.

¶21

Sri.A.Jayasankar, Advocate takes notice for the second respondent. The Government Pleader takes notice for the first respondent.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent.

¶23

The contention urged by the review petitioner is that the findings contained in the opening paragraph and the sixth paragraph of the judgment to the effect that “the contention raised by the management that the second respondent was a workman had been found against by the Labour Court” are not supported by the findings of Ext.P10 preliminary order. On going through the contentions in the preliminary order, though it appears that the Labour Court has proceeded on the basis that the second respondent is a workman there appears to be no specific finding to that effect. Therefore, the statement to this

¶24

¶25

Review Petition No.486/2016

¶26

effect contained in the first sentence of the opening paragraph as well as the second sentence of paragraph six are deleted from the judgment.

¶27

The review petition is ordered accordingly.

¶28

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

¶29

sks

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Micro Medited 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Unnikrishnan P. Vs Cochin Devaswom Board

K.K.Santhosh Kumar Vs the President, Pattazhi Vadakkekara

Priya Raveendran Vs the Dist.Medical Officer, Kollam

Premchand R.Nair Vs Biju Prabhakar

K.P. Rema Vs the Dist.Education Officer, Tellicherry

M.A. Nissar Vs State of Kerala