Dismissed

The Managing Partner, v. Labour Court

Kerala HC24 Mar 2022WP(C)/253/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a Labour Court award granting compensation instead of reinstatement to a workman dismissed for misconduct without a concluded enquiry. The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Labour Court's reasoning and the drawing of adverse inferences.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed holding that the Labour Court award was not liable to be interfered with.

The Managing Partner, Vs Labour Court — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 253 OF 2019

¶5

PETITIONERS:

¶6

1 THE MANAGING PARTNER, M/S CITY AUTOMOBILES 5/3A, EAST NADAKKAVE, POST ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE 673 006

¶7

2 THE MANAGING PARTNER, M/S CITY AUTO SPARES, EAST NADAKKAVE, POST ERANHIPALAM,KOZHIKODE 673 006

¶8

BY ADVS.
A.K.PREETHA
C.ANIL KUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE 673 020.

¶11

2 VENUGOPAL. T.P., S/O KRISHNAN,ARADHNAN, VADAKKEDATH PARAMBU,POST ERANHIPALAM,KOZHIKODE 673 006 BY ADVS. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN SRI.P.A.HARISH

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

WP(C) NO. 253 OF 2019 -2-

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

Award of the Labour Court dated 21.08.2018 in I.D.No.35 of 2015 assessing the compensation in favour of the workman instead of ordering reinstatement has been assailed by the petitioners employer – Management. Venugopal T.P., the second respondent – workman was employed as salesman with the petitioner on a salary of Rs.8,500/-. He happened to be a brother in law of the partner of City Automobiles and City Autospares. Management initiated disciplinary action against the second respondent and when the proceedings were pending second respondent submitted a complaint of denial of employment by the management. As no action was taken the second respondent filed an application before the Labour Court alleging the denial of the employment by registering the case as I.D.No.35 of 2015. Petitioners appeared and contested the

¶16

WP(C) NO. 253 OF 2019 -3-

¶17

aforementioned claim by filing the written statement on the ground that it was not a case of termination but abandonment. Notice of enquiry was served but the second respondent did not appear and therefore the enquiry was dropped. Both the parties had submitted oral and documentary evidence before the Labour Court. The Labour Court noticing all the facts assessed the compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- with the benefit of interest if not paid within time line, instead of awarding reinstatement.

¶18

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that Section 7 & 7A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provides for the jurisdiction of the Labour Court and Industrial Tribunals to deal with

¶19

the dispute with regard to discharge or dismissal of workmen and not of the compensation.

¶20

Second respondent had indulged into serious misconduct including obstruction of work in the

¶21

WP(C) NO. 253 OF 2019 -4-

¶22

establishment and assault on the employer. It is settled law that even if no enquiry was conducted against the delinquent employee but the charges can be proved as per factual aspect, services can be dispensed with. That was proved through the testimony of MW2 the management partner and MW1 and MW3. Documents Exts.M13 and M14 also proved the incident. But the Labour Court refused to consider the same on the ground that the evidences were of interested person. Prior to proceedings before the conciliation officer, the management initiated disciplinary action against the second respondent. Duty of the Labour Court after having formed an opinion that the termination was unjustified and ought to have ordered reinstatement in service without back wages but not the compensation.

¶23

On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the respondent workman submitted that only the interested witnesses were examined. Respondents attempted to bring on record the statement of two other

¶24

WP(C) NO. 253 OF 2019 -5-

¶25

witnesses namely M14 and M15, employees of the establishment Jisha and Seena, alleged to have witnessed the alleged incident. But they were not produced for cross examination as the evidence of these witnesses, for the reason best known, have been withheld by the management. The medical record on record showed that both the workman and the partner of the management had suffered the injuries and the workman who was drawing the salary of Rs.8,500/- his service was illegally dispensed in 2015 . The compensation commensurate with the salary for the period pending litigation and urged this Court for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶26

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper books and of the view that there is no force or merit in the submission of the counsel representing the petitioners.

¶27

It is a matter of record that the respondent No.2 is the brother in law of one of the partners of the

¶28

WP(C) NO. 253 OF 2019 -6-

¶29

management. Except the testimony of the relatives management attempted to place on record the statement of M14 and M15 Jisha and Seena but they were withheld from the cross examination. The Labour Court in my view rightly drew the adverse inference as per the provisions of Section 114G of the Indian Evidence Act. The alleged incident on 02.01.2015 reflected that both workman and partner had sustained injuries. If at all there was some truthfulness in the allegation of the management, matter could have been reported with the police. But no such action was taken. MWs.1 and 3 were the interested witnesses. Management initiated the enquiry but came out with the plea that the respondents No.2 abandoned and did not join the enquiry, but no effort of show cause notice that the enquiry is pending requesting the respondent No.2 to join was taken, failing which adverse consequence would follow. Had that effort been made perhaps this Court would have found a different opinion that it was a case of

¶30

WP(C) NO. 253 OF 2019 -7-

¶31

abandonment and continuation of the enquiry would have been a farcical exercise. But in the absence of the same the compensation so arrived that to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/- commensurate with the last date drawn salary of respondent No.2 which was Rs.8,500/-. Workman was allegedly removed from the service without complying with the procedure of Section 25 on 02.01.2015. Award of the Labour Court entailed into the reference as far back as 2015 and decided the matter on 21.08.2018. That means the matter was kept pending till 2018. Present writ petition was filed in 2019 which came for admission dated 07.01.2019 and obtained an interim order. If at all the workman had been reinstated would have been entitled to same amount of salary substituted by way of compensation.

¶32

This Court cannot sit in the arm chair of an appellate authority to examine the veracity of the award of the Labour Court except if it suffers from blatant irrationality, procedural impropriety or arbitrariness.

¶33

WP(C) NO. 253 OF 2019 -8-

¶34

None of the aforementioned ingredients have been established warranting interference under Article 226.

¶35

Writ petition sans merit. Accordingly dismissed.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

AMIT RAWAL

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

vv

¶40

WP(C) NO. 253 OF 2019 -9-

¶41

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 253/2019

¶42

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶43

`EXHIBIT`	`P1` `TRUE COPY OF` `FILED BY THE` `35/2015`	`THE` `2ND`	`CLAIM STATEMENT` `RESPONDENT IN ID`
`EXHIBIT`	`P2` `TRUE COPY OF` `FILED BY THE` `35/2015`	`THE` `PET`	`CLAIM STATEMENT` `ITIONERS IN ID`
`EXHIBIT`	`P3` `TRUE COPY OF` `THE 2ND RESP`	`THE` `ONDE`	`REJOINDER FILED BY` `NT IN ID 35/2015`
`EXHIBIT`	`P4` `TRUE COPY OF` `1ST RESPONDE` `35/2015`	`THE` `NT D`	`AWARD PASSED BY THE` `ATED 21.8.2018 IN ID`

¶44

`RESPONDENT EXHIBI`	`TS`
`EXHIBIT R2(a):`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE`	`COMPLAINT GIVEN BY`
	`THE 2ND RESPONDENT` `OFFICER DATED 14/0`	`BEFORE THE LABOUR` `5/2015.`
`EXHIBIT R2(b):`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE`	`COMMUNICATION`
	`DATED 23/06/2015 I`	`SSUED TO 2ND`
	`RESPONDENT BY THE`	`LABOUR OFFICER.`

The Managing Partner, v. Labour Court

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Partner, v. Labour Court

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

Remshad N. K. Vs State of Kerala

P Moosa Vs C Ravindranathan

Darly Sebastian @ Darly Tony Vs the District Labour Officer

T.K.Sundaresan Vs the District Collector

M/S. Vision Academy Vs the Deputy Labour Commissioner

Sudheer Ram S., Vs Biju Prabhakar