Remanded

Peermedu Thottam Thozhilali Union (Citu) v. the Manager, Carady Goody Estate

Kerala HC7 Dec 2016WP(C)/28546/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenges an award upholding a workman's dismissal for misconduct. The Kerala High Court held that the Industrial Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence adduced by the management to sustain the dismissal. The court set aside the award due to lack of objective satisfaction and remanded the matter to the tribunal for reconsideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned award dated 8.5.2008 is set aside and matter remitted back to the tribunal for reconsideration of evidence and satisfaction regarding legality of dismissal.

Peermedu Thottam Thozhilali Union (Citu) Vs… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 28546 of 2013 (P)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

PEERMEDU THOTTAM THOZHILALI UNION (CITU), REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, P.R.CENTRE, VANDIPERIYAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SMT.A.K.PREETHA

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. THE MANAGER, CARADY GOODY ESTATE, VANDIPERIYAR.P.O, IDUKKI-685553.

¶11

2. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL IDUKKI,

¶12

MINI CIVIL STATION, PEERMADE, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶13

R1 BY ADVS. SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS

¶14

SRI.P.S.GOPINATH SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI

¶15

R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.N.SWAMIDASAN

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

WP(C).No. 28546 of 2013 (P)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.4.2005 IN S.T.749/2004 ON THE FILES OF JFMC,PEERMADE.

¶22

EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶23

EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE IST RESPONDENT IN I.D.341/2006

¶24

EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 8.5.2008 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN I.D.31/2006.

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.(C).No.28546 of 2013

¶33

¶34

Dated this the 7^th day of December, 2016

¶35

J U D G M E N T

¶36

The legality of an award passed in an industrial dispute arising in the context of dismissal of workman is questioned in this writ petition by the union.

¶37

The Government referred an industrial dispute for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal, Idukki as follows:

¶38

“Whether the dismissal of Shri.Anthoni Pichai, No.1861 by the management is justifiable? If not what relief he is entitled to?”

¶39

The workman, Anthoni Pichai was dismissed pursuant to a domestic enquiry conducted by the management. The

¶40

workman was found guilty of the alleged misconduct. The misconduct alleged against him is misbehavior with the supervisor. Consequent upon the finding of guilt, the management dismissed the workman from service. The workman was represented before the tribunal by the union. The

¶41

W.P.(C).No.28546/2013

¶42

-:2:-

¶43

tribunal by a preliminary award found that the enquiry conducted was proper and also found that the punishment imposed is justifiable.

¶44

The union challenges this award mainly on the ground that the tribunal failed to exercise jurisdiction vested with it to reappreciate the evidence as to the alleged misconduct and also it failed to satisfy the legality of the punishment imposed in terms of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

¶45

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent also.

¶46

The workman has a contention that had the tribunal ventured upon to reappreciate the evidence, it could have found out that there were no materials before the enquiry officer to conclude the alleged misconduct against the workman. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out to the impugned order and submits that except in general statement finding that the enquiry was proper, absolutely there was no discussion about any of the evidence given on either side of the workman or on the side of the management to rely, to prove the alleged

¶47

W.P.(C).No.28546/2013

¶48

-:3:-

¶49

misconduct. I find force in this argument. It appears that the tribunal was carried away by the fact that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the workman to contest the matter and that would suffice the principles of natural justice. The natural justice in this context certainly would also include an opportunity given in a domestic enquiry. For the moment, I am of the view that the tribunal was justified in observing so, but in this case actually, the denial of natural justice happened at the hands of the tribunal as the tribunal had not made any effort to consider whether there was any evidence on the side of the management to prove misconduct. The tribunal has to satisfy with the evidence as adduced by the management to arrive at the conclusion that the order of dismissal was warranted or not. This satisfaction as contemplated under Section 11A of the ID Act is not a procedural compliance in order to find whether any procedural compliance before the domestic enquiry but as to the satisfaction of evidence adduced by the management to impose punishment related to dismissal. The order in this regard is bereft of any satisfaction being made by the tribunal as to the

¶50

W.P.(C).No.28546/2013

¶51

-:4:-

¶52

legality of the finding based on the evidence adduced in the domestic enquiry and without there being any appreciation of such evidence, the tribunal could not have held that misconduct is proved as against the workman. Further, without appreciating evidence, the tribunal could not have held that punishment imposed on the workman was adequate. In the absence of any appreciation being made with reference to the finding and evidence in the domestic enquiry, merely observing that there is compliance of natural justice in the proceedings of domestic enquiry, the tribunal should not have concluded the matter. This court is of the view that there was no satisfaction as to the evidence adduced to prove misconduct by the tribunal. The satisfaction must objectively reflect in the impugned order after analysing the evidence. The industrial adjudication is not a mere exercise of a subjective analysis by the tribunal as to the nature of the satisfaction but must reflect it in an objective way as expected from any judicial forum. Therefore, I find Ext.P4 order is not legally sustainable and accordingly, it is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the tribunal for reconsideration. It is

¶53

W.P.(C).No.28546/2013

¶54

-:5:-

¶55

made clear that I have not entered into any finding as to the legality of the enquiry conducted or the finding entered by the enquiry officer. The interference is only to the extent that there was lack of satisfaction by the tribunal as to the legality of the dismissal. The parties shall appear before the tribunal on 19.1.2017. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.

¶56

Sd/A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

¶57

Peermedu Thottam Thozhilali Union (Citu) v. the Manager, Carady Goody Estate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Peermedu Thottam Thozhilali Union (Citu) v. the Manager, Carady Goody Estate

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

Baby N.V Vs Sri. Ajith Bhagavath Rao Patil

K.K.Abdul Gafoor Vs K.M.Shaji

Soli v. Kurian Vs Joby

Ibrahim Vs Mara Pandiyan

Nissarudin Vs Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Rajamalar Vs State of Kerala