Kerala High Court
High Range Estate Employees' ... vs The Industrial Tribunal on 10 October, 2018
Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 18TH ASWINA, 1940
WP(C).No.31605 of 2008
PETITIONER/S:
1 HIGH RANGE ESTATE EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION (CITU),
MUNDAKKAYAM, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL
SECRETARY.
2 AKHILA KERALA PLANTATION LABOUR UNION(UTUC),
MUNDAKKAYAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY
ITS GENERAL SECRETARY.
BY ADVS.
SRI.A.JAYASANKAR
SRI.MANU GOVIND
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL,
IDUKKI.
2 KOOTTICKAL ESTATE,
KOOTTICKAL, MUNDAKKAYAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
R2 BY ADVS.
SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA (SENIOR)
SRI.TERRY V.JAMES
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.PRIYA SHANAVAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
10.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.31605/2008 2
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners are Unions of workers who were dismissed pursuant to an enquiry. An industrial dispute was raised in the matter and the Industrial Tribunal, Idukki did not interfere with the enquiry report. Challenging the Award in the industrial dispute, the petitioners approached this Court. The petitioners' case is that enquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners points out to the fact that the enquiry officer was a legally trained person and the employees were illiterate. It is also submitted that the enquiry is vitiated in the light of declaration of law of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Chandra vs. Delhi University and Others ((2015) 5 SCC 549).
3. Learned counsel for the management points out that the enquiry officer is not a legally trained person and he is only a holder of degree and appointed as Public Relations Officer in the company. It is further submitted that the petitioners had not raised objection to the enquiry at any point of time including before the Industrial Tribunal.
4. The Tribunal, after adverting to the report, came to the conclusion that the proceedings were concluded following the principles W.P.(C) No.31605/2008 3 of natural justice. There was no challenge before the Tribunal regarding the competency of enquiry officer. The writ jurisdiction cannot be converted as appellate jurisdiction to raise such plea first time. I find no reason to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal. In regard to the punishment, the Tribunal adverted to the nature of misconduct proved against the workers. The workers' misconduct in fact resulted in initiation of disciplinary proceedings. The Tribunal noted that the misconduct proved against the workers is grave and serious and the punishment is proportionate. That finding need not be interfered with.
This writ petition is therefore dismissed.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE W.P.(C) No.31605/2008 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER MISTAKENLY DATED 07.05.2007 BY 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF DISMISSAL ORDER DATED 17.01.2005 ISSUED TO SRI.R.GANESH.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF DISMISSAL ORDER DATED 17.01.2005 ISSUED TO P.D.MOHANAN.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL.
True Copy P.S to Judge smp