Dismissed

Davis Samuel, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Nov 2022WP(C)/14950/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a labor court award, the petitioner contested his dismissal from service. The High Court examined the evidence and the labor court's preliminary order. Finding no illegality or perversity in the award upholding the dismissal, the court dismissed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the Labour Court award was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Davis Samuel, Vs State of Kerala — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL TUESDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 14950 OF 2021

¶3

PETITIONER/S:

¶4

DAVIS SAMUEL, AGED 57 YEARS S/O. M. SAMUEL, DINI NIVAS, ERUMATHALA P.O, CHOONDI, ALUVA683 112 BY ADVS. N.K.SHYJU ARCHANA MITHRAN O.K. DEEPAK RAJ NANDU S KUMAR DAKSHINA SARASWATHY

¶5

RESPONDENT/S:

¶6

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LABOUR DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001 2 THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, ERNAKULAM, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 030 3 G.T.N. TEXTILES LTD., REPRESENTED BY SENIOR GENERAL MANAGER (MANUFACTURING), DOOR NO. VIII/911, ERUMATHALA P.O, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-683 112 BY ADVS. P.BENNY THOMAS D.PREM KAMATH TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL) ABEL TOM BENNY JYOTHISH KRISHNA AHAMMAD SACHIN K. KURIAN OOMMEN THERAKATH SRUTHY J. MAMPILLY

¶7

OTHER PRESENT:

¶8

SR GP SRI V K SUNIL

¶9

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶10

WP(C) NO. 14950 OF 2021

¶11

¶12

JUDGMENT

¶13

The petitioner workman through the instant writ petition has assailed the award dated 16.2.2021 rendered in I.D No.17 of 2018 rejecting the reference whereby the dismissal from the services of the management has been upheld.

¶14

The petitioner was an employee of the respondent management and had allegedly worked for a period of 32 years and was dismissed on 6.9.2016 on account of two charges. He is stated to have been working as a spinning sider in spinning department and during the working days, because of the independent and impartial outlook earned the reputation of both the management and co-working men, at the industry. He was elected and elevated as the leader of independent registered union namely G.S.T Workers Union.

¶15

On 28.12.2015, was served with a show cause notice alleging that on 26.12.2015 and 27.12.2015 was absent from his work site for some times during the interval times and found in discussion with ACR sider K.D Antony at post spinning department by disturbing his work for more than '10' minutes. The petitioner responded to the aforementioned show cause notice vide reply dated 6.1.2016, Ext.P2 by explaining that he had gone for, tea and drinking water bud did not wilfully remain absent. Being dissatisfied with the reply the management issued charge sheet dated 14.1.2016, Ext.P3 and

¶16

WP(C) NO. 14950 OF 2021

¶17

¶18

proceeded with the domestic enquiry in respect of loitering or absence without leave from the place of appointed work in the factory. He was also issued a second charge sheet on the allegation of wilful in subordination or disobedient, disorderly behaviours during work hours, striking or inviting others to strike, slowing down the performance of work, Ext.P6 dated 22.4.2016. Dissatisfied with the reply enquiry officer was appointed.

¶19

As per the enquiry report dated 12.8.2016 Ext.P7 both the charges were proved and found guilty, resulting into dismissal.

¶20

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner workman submitted that the labour court did not consider that the action of management resulted into unfair practice. There was no categoric admission on behalf of the petitioner of having admitted the guilt. He had an unblemished record of 32 (thirty two) years and because of suffering from illness had gone to wash face, for tea and bath room, which could not be a case of a wilful absence. As far as the the 2^nd charge of insubordination is concerned, the same did not have a ny truthfulness. Though the petitioner had been insisting upon the management for finalization of the long-term settlement w hich had been delayed for, no rhyme or reason. The Management had been assuring the Union leaders that they would reinstate all the suspended employees. But later on only 7 (seven) employees were reinstated. The dismissal order was based on an ex-parte evidence lead before the

¶21

WP(C) NO. 14950 OF 2021

¶22

¶23

Domestic Enquiry Officer. No opportunity had been given to defend the charges levelled against the petitioner. The enquiry officer worked under the dictum of the management. No material has been placed on record attributing any huge loss to the company on behalf of the petitioner.

¶24

On the other hand, counsel for the management supported the impu gned awar d and submitted that the petition er cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate as during the course of the enquiry before the enquiry officer admitted his guilt and there is no contrary affidavit filed at any point of time that it was under duress or any pressure.

¶25

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book.

¶26

On perusal of the enquiry report dated 12.8.2016, Ext.P7, it is evident that the petitioner was served with the copy of the list of witnesses, documents. The charges referred in the charge sheets dated 14.1.2016 and 22.4.2016 were read over to the accused whereupon he admitted his guilt. It was found that the workman was working against the interest of the company and had been responsible in disruption of the normal and smooth functioning. When the reference was raised before the Industrial Dispute, a preliminary order dated 30.12.2020 was passed by the labour court wherein it was held that the enquiry conducted against the petitioner workman was

¶27

WP(C) NO. 14950 OF 2021

¶28

¶29

perfectly legal and justified. For the reasons best known, the said the preliminary order has not been challenged. After serving the enquiry report, served a show cause notice dated 13.8.2016 and vide explanation dated 19.8.2016, W10 admitted all the offences mentioned in the charge sheet Ext.W3 and W6. Though a faint attempt of denial was made but no contrary evidence or any independent witness has been examined/ or lead. The labour court noticing all the facts, found that the dismissal against the petitioner was perfectly legal and justified. I do not find any illegality and perversity much less order of the labour court to be erroneous to form a different opinion. The award is upheld. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

AMIT RAWAL

JUDGE

sab

WP(C) NO. 14950 OF 2021

¶35

¶36

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14950/2021

¶37

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶38

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 28.12.2015 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 06.01.2016 SENT BY THE PETITONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET DATD 14.01.2016 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 11.04.2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 25.04.2016 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 22.04.2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 12.08.2016 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P8	TRUE COPY OF THE STANDING ORDER 23.10.1969 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P9	TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD IN ID NO. 17/2018 OF LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 16.02.2021.

Davis Samuel, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Davis Samuel, v. State of Kerala

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

Suman Abraham, Vs the Kottayam Textiles

Principal, Awh Polytechnic College Vs the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Fasten Medical Pvt. Ltd. Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

M/S.Malappuram Spinning Mills Ltd., Vs the Board of Trustees

P.K.Salimkumar Vs State of Kerala

P.P.Jose Vs Labour Court, Ernakulam