A writ petition under Article 226 filed by State Bank of India challenging a Labour Court preliminary order was dismissed. The court directed the petitioner to await the final award before the Labour Court.
The original petition was dismissed leaving open the right of the petitioner to impugne the final award of the Labour Court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017/25TH SRAVANA, 1939
OP(LC).No. 23 of 2017 (O)
ID 41/2013 OF LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT
PETITIONER:
STATE BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,(B&O) ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, KOTTAYAM.
BY ADVS.SMT.BINDUMOL JOSEPH SRI.B.S.SYAMANTHAK
RESPONDENT(S):
1. SMT PRASANNA KUMARI T.V
S/O LATE. N. GOPALAKRISHNAN, GEETHA BHAVAN, VARANDAU PO, CHERTHALA, 688543.
2. THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM.
R2 BY ADVS. SMT.O.M.SHALINA, CGC SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL
THIS OP (LABOUR COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-08-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
sdr/-
OP(LC).No. 23 of 2017 (O)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
| EXHIBIT P1 | A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES DATED 20.10.2011. |
|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P2 |
A TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE WORKMAN DATED 2.11.2011. |
| EXHIBIT P3 | A TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 23.7.2017. |
| EXHIBIT P4 |
A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE WORKMAN DATED 15.8.2012. |
| EXHIBIT P5 | A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY DATED 12.9.2012., |
| EXHIBIT P6 | A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.9.2012. |
| EXHIBIT P7 | A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE WORKMAN ON 6.10.2012. |
| EXHIBIT P8 | A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE PERSONAL HEARING DATED 6.10.2012. |
| EXHIBIT P9 | A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY DATED 10.10.2012. |
| EXHIBIT P10 | A TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM STATEMENT FILED BY THE WORKMAN. |
| EXHIBIT P11 | A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER MANAGEMENT IN ID 41/2013. |
| EXHIBIT P12 | A TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE WORKMAN DATED 21.3.2014. |
| EXHIBIT P13 | A TRUE COPY OF ENQUIRY PROCEEDINGS REGISTER. |
| EXHIBIT P14 | A TRUE COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY ORDER DATED 28.3.2017 PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT. |
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL
---------------------------------/TRUE COPY/
PA TO JUDGE sdr/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
======================== Original Petition(Labour Court) No.23 of 2017
======================== Dated this the 16th day of August 2017
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P14 preliminary order passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.41/2013, pursuant to a dispute raised, at the instance of a workman under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The dispute raised by the workman was in connection with the termination of his service on the ground of an alleged misconduct that was proved against him, in a domestic enquiry conducted by the management. In Ext.P14 order, the Labour Court, which considered the issue of validity of the enquiry as a preliminary issue, proceeded to find that the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer was vitiated by the principles of natural justice, and, hence, was liable to be set aside. It is against the said preliminary order that the petitioner management has chosen to approach this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Original Petition(Labour Court) No.23/17 2
Original Petition(Labour Court) No.23/17 3
note, in this connection, that the aforesaid view is consistent with the declaration of law by the Supreme Court in The Cooper Engineering Ltd. v. P.P. Mundhe – [AIR 1975 SC 1900] and D. P. Maheshwari v. Delhi Admn. and Others – [1983 KHC 514] . In the latter decision, the Supreme Court has clearly stated that High Courts in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not stop proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal so that a preliminary issue may be decided by them. The rationale for the said decision appears to be the finding that neither the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution nor the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136 should be allowed to be exploited by those who can well afford to wait, to the detriment of those who can ill afford to wait, by dragging the latter from Court to Court for adjudication of peripheral issues, avoiding a decision on issues more vital to them. The decision was therefore rendered keeping in mind the interest of the workman in a dispute involving the services of the workman under the management. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on a Division Bench decision of this Court in St. Thomas Missions Hospital v. State of Kerala and Another - [2007 (1) KHC 583] , which states that the decision of the Supreme Court in Cooper Engineering (Supra) is not to be treated as a cast iron proposition to be applied in all cases, I note from the facts in the said Division
Original Petition(Labour Court) No.23/17 4
Bench decision that, that was a case where the management had already bound itself to the enquiry that was already conducted by them, and had not reserved a right to hold de novo proceedings, in the event of a finding by the Labour Court that the enquiry conducted by it was vitiated in any manner. The said fact, should serve to distinguish the Division Bench decision from the decisions of the Supreme Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent. In the result, I am of the view that the petitioner should be relegated to the further proceedings before the Labour Court, and await the final award in I.D.No.41/2013, pending before the Labour Court, Ernakulam, before approaching this Court through a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The Original petition is thus dismissed, leaving open the right of the petitioner to impugn the final award of the Labour Court in appropriate proceedings.
Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE
sd
// True Copy //
P.A. to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner management can immediately challenge the preliminary order of the Labour Court finding the enquiry vitiated.
Whether the High Court should accept the writ petition before the Labour Court finalizes the preliminary and main issues.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
The Cooper Engineering Ltd. v. P.P. MundheRelied on¶33
The Cooper Engineering Ltd. v. P.P. Mundhe – [AIR 1975 SC 1900] · Who else cites this
D. P. Maheshwari v. Delhi Admn. and OthersRelied on¶33
D. P. Maheshwari v. Delhi Admn. and Others – [1983 KHC 514]
St. Thomas Missions Hospital v. State of Kerala and AnotherDistinguished¶33
St. Thomas Missions Hospital v. State of Kerala and Another - [2007 (1) KHC 583]
State Bank of India
Smt Prasanna Kumari T.V
Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court
A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
