This court dismissed a writ petition challenging a labour court order that set aside a domestic enquiry due to natural justice violations. The court held that the enquiry officer serving as the judge of his own cause vitiated the inquiry and directed a fresh evidence session.
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 AMIT RAWAL
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 18606 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
THE MANAGER CARADY GOODY ESTATE, VANDIPERIYAR P.O., IDUKKI - 685 533.
BY ADVS. M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR K.JOHN MATHAI JOSON MANAVALAN KURYAN THOMAS PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM RAJA KANNAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE GENERAL SECRETARY, PEERMADE THOTTAM THOZHILALI UNION, P.R.CENTRE, VANDIPERIYAR P.O., IDUKKI - 685 533.
2 THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL PEERMADE, IDUKKI - 685 531. BY ADVS. A.K.PREETHA C.ANIL KUMAR
OTHER PRESENT:
GP SMT K.M. RESHMI
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 18606 OF 2022
2
JUDGMENT
Preliminary order in Industrial Dispute No.5 of 2017 dated 15.7.2021, Ext.P10 is under challenge on behalf of the petitioner management. One Sri. Anthony Pichai, employed as a permanent worker under the management was charge sheeted on 14.5.2001 on the allegation of act of misconduct, riotous or disorderly behavior in the premises. The allegation of misbehavior and mishandle was without any reason and provocation much less the reference of a crime case registered against the workman by the Vandiperiyar police. A domestic enquiry was conducted allegedly complying with the principles of natural justice; two witnesses were examined on the side of the workman and after the enquiry report, the 2nd notice issued to the workman enclosing the copy of the enquiry report as to why the punishment of dismi ssal not be imposed. On the basis of the enquiry report dated 26.7.2002, Ext.P5, workman was dismissed from the service with effect from 1.12.2002. Accordingly, Industrial Dispute was raised.
3
WP(C) NO. 18606 OF 2022
principles of natural justice.
WP(C) NO. 18606 OF 2022
4
show cause notice and chargesheet was the Senior manager of the Estate. Therefore the findings of the labour court that the same person had issued the show cause notice and conducted the enquiry is totally incorrect.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book. On perusal of the document Ext.P2 dated 28.4.2001, show cause notice, it is evident that it was served by Sri. M.V Ajitkumar, who was at the time of service of show cause notice, was, Senior Manager whereas the enquiry report Ext.P5 reveals inquiry was conducted by the same person. It is settled law that no person can be judge of his own cause. The element of prejudice cannot be ruled out. No explanation much less reasonable has come forth as to what was the necessity of appointing the same person who served the show cause notice, even if his designation subsequently had changed. This was the primary reason for the labour court to hold that the enquiry was vitiated in law. The provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act empowers the labour court to enquire into the authenticity and validity of the domestic enquiry and in case it is found to be vitiated, parties are to be given fresh opportunity to lead evidence, which is precisely what has been done by the labour court. Management was aware of this fact that the show cause
WP(C) NO. 18606 OF 2022
5
notice issued by the person and the enq uiry officer are the same and thus cannot volte face take the plea that it would not be in a position to hold evidence and produce record. Order is perfectly legal and justified. No ground for interference is made out. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
sab
AMIT RAWAL
JUDGE
WP(C) NO. 18606 OF 2022
6
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18606/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
| Exhibit P1 | TRUE COPY OF THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT OF KANAKARATHINAM DATED 02.03.2001. |
|---|---|
| Exhibit P2 | TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 28.04.2001 WITHOUT ITS TAMIL TRANSLATION. |
| Exhibit P3 | TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY ANTHONY PICHAI DATED NIL. |
| Exhibit P4 | TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 14.05.2001. |
| Exhibit P5 | TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE ENQUIRY OFFICER DATED 26.07.2002 ALONG WITH TRANSLATION. |
| Exhibit P6 | TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM STATEMENT DATED 29.09.2006 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN ID NO. 31/2006. |
| Exhibit P7 | TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED NIL JANUARY 2007 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2NDRESPONDENT IN ID. NO. 31/2006. |
| Exhibit P8 | TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 08.05.2008 IN I.D. No. 31/2006. |
| Exhibit P9 | TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.12.2016 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN WP (C) NO. 28546/2013. |
| Exhibit P10 | TRUE COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY ORDER IN I.D. NO. 5/2017 DATED 15.07.2021 OF THE 2NDRESPONDENT. |
| Exhibit P11 | TRUE COPY OF EXT NO.10 MARKED IN THE ENQUIRY DATED 03.07.2001. |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the industrial court was correct in setting aside the domestic enquiry on the ground that the enquiry officer who also issued the show cause notice acted as judge of his own cause.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Manager Carady Goody Estate
The General Secretary, Peermade Thottam Thozhilali Union
The Industrial Tribunal Peermade
Amit Rawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
