Allowed

Centaur Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v. P.Ajith Kumar

Kerala HC20 Dec 2022WP(C)/17493/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside a Labour Court ex parte award in an industrial dispute involving a dismissed workman. Recognizing procedural impropriety due to the pandemic preventing the employer's appearance, the Court remanded the matter, refunded a security deposit, and directed fresh evidence adduction.

What did the court decide?

Impugned award set aside; Rs. 60,000 cost awarded; Rs. 2,00,000 refund directed; matter remanded to Labour Court Kozhikode for fresh evidence.

Centaur Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Vs P.Ajith… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 20^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 17493 OF 2021

¶5

PETITIONERS:

¶6

1 CENTAUR PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD CENTAUR HOUSE, NEAR GRAND HYATT HOTEL, VAKOLA, SANTACRUZ (EAST), MUMBAI-400 055 REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER (HRD).

¶7

2 THE REGIONAL MANAGER CENTAUR PHARMACEUTICALS (P) LTD., GEETHAM, THEKKVEEDU LANE, NEAR KERALEYA AYURVEDA SAMAJAM, KANNUR ROAD, CALICUT.

¶8

BY ADVS. R.SUNIL KUMAR A.SALINI LAL

¶9

RESPONDENT:

¶10

P.AJITH KUMAR S/O. RAMAKRISHNAN, DEVITHEERTHAM, ERAKKOTTIRI ROAD, MEETNA, PALAPPURAM, OTTAPALAM-679 103. BY ADVS. B.ASHOK SHENOY P.S.GIREESH ARJUN R NAIK

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

W.P.(C) No.17493 of 2021

¶13

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

Dated this the 20 th day of December, 2022

¶16

Petitioner is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing and distribution of pharmaceuticals with various branches across the country. Respondent was working as a Medical and Sales Representative in Petitioner Company since year 1986. He worked at various stations of the petitioner company. The respondent requested the petitioner company to implement legal benefits specified under the Sales Promotion of Employees (Condition of Service) Act which the petitioner Management did not accede when respondent workman questioned the oppression of the company, was transferred from Palakkad to Chennai on the ground of business exigencies. The workman had 29 (twenty nine) years of continuous service and accordingly disputed the transfer to be in violation of law by taking up the matter before District Labour Officer, but did not yield any result. Subsequently, the Management issued a charge memo to the workmen and after conducting an enquiry was dismissed from service with effect from 09/09/2015 onwards. The said dismissal was challenged by the workman before the Labour Court,

¶17

W.P.(C) No.17493 of 2021 3

¶18

on the ground that at the time of dismissal, petitioner was ailing, by filing, a complaint as ID No. 40/2018 before the Labour Court Kozhikode. Since the petitioner Company could not file written statement in time, the company was proceeded ex parte. A petition was filed for setting aside the ex parte order which is allowed on a cost of Rs.4,000/-. Since it was pandemic period, the counsel for the petitioner was not able to communicate the same to the company and hence failed to remit the cost, Labour Court allowed the claim vide ex parte award Ext. P2 dated 27.02.2021. Hence the present writ petition with the following prayer:-

¶19

Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction calling for the records pertaining to Exhibit P-2 and set aside the same or in alternative remand the same for fresh disposal.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the

¶21

writ petition was brought up for the extension of interim order, the same was allowed on a condition that the petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards backwages ordered in the impugned award within 3 weeks before the Labour Court against which writ appeal no.525 of 2022 was preferred. The Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal and accordingly Rs. 2,00,000/- was paid by the petitioner management as directed in the order dated 04.04.2022.

¶22

W.P.(C) No.17493 of 2021

¶23

¶24

The counsel for the petitioner also contended that the impugned award be set aside so as to render them a fair opportunity to lead evidence on their behalf.

¶25

Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent workman is ailing and so it is just and proper that the Labour Court, kozhikode may be directed to release the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- deposited by the petitioner management in compliance with interim order dated 04.04.2022 and judgment dated 26.04.2022 in Writ Appeal No. 525/2022.

¶26

I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and appraised the paperbook.

¶27

Though the respondent had instituted the claim in the year 2018, due to the pandemic and flood situations the petitioner management couldn't contest the proceedings before the Labour Court or lead evidence on their behalf. It is erroneous on part of the Labour Court to have allowed the claim ex parte without affording hearing to the Management and such action defies the purpose of principles of natural justice. I am of the view that ends of justice can be met only if the petitioner management is given an opportunity to lead evidence before the Labour Court. Considering the fact that the

¶28

W.P.(C) No.17493 of 2021

¶29

¶30

management had already deposited an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- as per order dated 4.4.2022 and judgment in writ appeal dated 26.04.2022, I deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned award of the Labour Court subject to a cost of Rs. 60,000/- and order refund of the abovementioned Rs. 2,00,000/- to the petitioner management. The matter is relegated to the Labour Court, Kozhikode. The parties through their respective counsels shall appear before the Labour Court on 18.01.2023. Thereafter the Labour Court will afford 3-3 (three -three) effective opportunities to the petitioner and respondent to lead evidence, subject to cross-examination and decide the same, thereafter within a period of 8 (eight months), in accordance with law i.e., after completion of the chances given to the parties.

¶31

Writ petition stands allowed with the aforementioned directions.

¶32

Sd/- AMIT RAWAL JUDGE

¶33

¶34

W.P.(C) No.17493 of 2021

¶35

¶36

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17493/2021

¶37

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶38

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE	AUTHORISATION LETTER
ISSUED BY THE PE	TITIONER COMPANY.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE	AWARD ISSUED BY THE
LABOUR COURT IN	ID NUMBER 40/2018.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE	AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION
TO DELAY FOR SET	ASIDE EX PARTE ORDER
SUBMITTED BY THE	PETITIONERS COUNSEL.

¶39

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶40

Exhibit R1(a)	True copy of claim statement dated nil filed by respondent before the Labour Court, Kozhikode in ID No.40 of 2018
Exhibit R1(b)	True copy of Medical Certificate No.ED/Endocrinology/Letters/2021-22 dated 22.06.2022 issued by Dr.Anish Ahamed K.M. Senior Endocrinologist, Endodiab, Perinthalmanna alongwith its true readable copy
Exhibit R1(c)	True copy of Medical Certificate dated 07.03.2022 issued by Dr.Arun Gopi, Senior Consultant Interventional Cardiologist, Metromed International Cardiac Centre Pvt. Ltd., Kozhikode
Exhibit R1(d)	True copy of appointment letter no. nil dated 25.11.1986 issued by 1st petitioner to respondent
Exhibit R1(e)	True copy of confirmation letter no. nil dated 28.05.1987 issued by 1st petitioner to respondent along with its true readable copy
Exhibit R1(f)	True copy of Judgment dated 26.04.2022 passed by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in WA No.525 of 2022

Centaur Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v. P.Ajith Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Centaur Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v. P.Ajith Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Manager Vs the General Secretary

Krishnakumar Vs Kerala State Electricity Board Limited

Manappuram Finance Ltd. Vs Deputy Labour Commissioner

Tvs Mobility Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala Represented by Its Secretary

M/S. Indsil Hydro Power and Manganese Limited Vs Kerala State Electricity Board Limited

Vinod Kumar .K Vs Smt. Sindhu .K.B