Petitioner challenged the Labour Court award upholding his dismissal. The Court held the Labour Court's finding on proportionality and procedure did not justify interference under Article 226.
Writ petition dismissed, preserving the Labour Court award and dismissal of the petitioner.
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
TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 779 OF 2013
PETITIONER:
P.P.JOSE
AGED 47 YEARS
PYNADATHU, KORATTI EAST, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.RAJASEKHARAN NAYAR
SMT.K.N.RAJANI
RESPONDENTS:
1 LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM KOCHI-682 031.2 DIRECTOR LITTLE FLOWER HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM. 683 572.BY ADV SRI.PAULSON C.VARGHESE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C). No. 779 OF 2013
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 8th day of November, 2022
Award of the Labour Court dated 26.06.2012 in I.D.No. 19/2005 whereby the workman had sought reference for adjudication of the dispute had been assailed by the workman who had not been successful before the Labour Court.
Officer to conduct the enquiry as the reply filed by the petitioner
3
WP(C). No. 779 OF 2013
was not found satisfactory. During the course of the enquiry, the petitioner moved an application to call for some records which was dismissed. Two enquiry reports were submitted and on account of that, the petitioner was dismissed.
4
WP(C). No. 779 OF 2013
found that the punishment imposed on the workman was proportionate.
the award Ext. P3 is perverse and against the principles of the natural justice for the reason that the document clearly shows that Anoop was an aggressor and he was drunk. He restrained and manhandled the petitioner and used offensive words. Circumstances were beyond control and therefore, a feud had taken place. Anoop had written a letter Ext.W2 to the workman by expressing apology of the said incident, which has not been taken note of. Even MW3 witness of the Management also stated Anoop was an aggressor.
5
WP(C). No. 779 OF 2013
and claim innocence. The Labour Court extensively dealt with the evidence and found that the workman failed to overcome the charge by giving direct and cogent evidence.
Writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
mtk
WP(C). No. 779 OF 2013
6
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 779/2013
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE
PETITIONER UNION BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 29.11.2004.
EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY ORDER IN
I.D.NO.19/2005 OF LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM
DATED 09.12.2009.
EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD IN I.D.NO.19/2005
OF LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED
26.06.2012.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the finding of the Labour Court that the enquiry was conducted in accordance with principles and punishment proportionate warrants interference under Article 226.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
P.P.Jose
Labour Court, Ernakulam
Director Little Flower Hospital and Research Centre
Amit Rawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court