Kerala High Court
Nidhin I.B vs State Of Kerala on 22 October, 2025
2025:KER:78643
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 30TH ASWINA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 28104 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
NIDHIN I.B.,
AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. BABURAJ,
PROPRIETOR OF STAR MANPOWER AGENCIES,
KINFRAPARK P.O., CHALAKKUDI, THRISSUR,
PIN - 680 309.
BY ADVS.
SRI.SAIJO HASSAN
SRI.ABRAHAM J. KANIYAMPADY
SRI.SANGEETH MOHAN
SRI.BAPPU GALIB SALAM
SMT.V.P.REJITHA
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE
LABOUR AND SKILLS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
STATUE, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695 033.
2 LABOUR COURT ERNAKULAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTAR, 4TH FLOOR,
KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, MANORAMA JUNCTION,
PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682 036.
3 SUJATHA K.K.,
THANDASSERY HOUSE, MAROTTICHAL, VALLOOR,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680 641.
4 CASINO HOTELS LIMITED,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
DR. JOSE PAUL CHANDY, CASINO HOTELS LIMITED,
KOKKALAI, THRISSUR, PIN - 680 021.
2025:KER:78643
WP(C) NO. 28104 OF 2025
2
5 THE CHAIRMAN,
DR. JOSE PAUL CHANDY, CASINO HOTELS LIMITED,
KOKKALAI, THRISSUR, PIN - 680 021.
6 SIJO JOY VARGHESE,
GENERAL MANAGER, CASINO HOTELS LIMITED, KOKKALAI,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680 021.
BY ADVS
SMT. RESMI THOMAS, GP
SRI. BENNY P. THOMAS (Sr.) (suo motu
recorded as per judgment)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 22.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:78643
WP(C) NO. 28104 OF 2025
3
JUDGMENT
This writ petition has been filed by one of the parties representing the Management in I.D No. 148/2022 on the file of the Labour Court, Ernakulam, challenging Exts.P5 and P6 orders through which an application to set aside Ext.P3 ex parte award was rejected by the Labour Court, Ernakulam.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in ID No.148/2022 there were three parties on the Management side, namely the Chairman, Casino Hotels Limited, Kokkalai, Thrissur, the General Manager, Casino Hotels Limited, Kokkalai, Thrissur, and the petitioner herein. It is submitted that an ex parte award came to be passed on ID No.148/2022 on 03-06-2023. It is submitted that on the application of the other two parties, namely the Chairman and the General Manager of Casino Hotel Limited, the ex parte award was set aside by order dated 04-11-2023, and the industrial dispute between the workman and those parties is still 2025:KER:78643 WP(C) NO. 28104 OF 2025 4 pending before the Labour Court, Ernakulam. It is submitted that the petitioner also filed an application to set aside the ex parte award, which was rejected by Ext.P5 order, finding no ground made out for setting aside the ex parte award. It is pointed out that, in Ext.P5 order, the Labour Court also found that no application had been filed to condone the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex parte award. It is submitted that though an application for review of Ext.P5 order had been filed, that application has also been rejected by Ext.P6 order. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since Ext.P3 ex parte award was already set aside at the instance of the Chairman and the General Manager of Casino Hotels Limited, and since the claim against the parties representing the Management, including the petitioner, is common, there is no point in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the ex parte award, as the matter is still pending at the instance of the Chairman and the General Manager of Casino Hotels Limited before 2025:KER:78643 WP(C) NO. 28104 OF 2025 5 the Labour Court, Ernakulam. It is also pointed out that there were no separate directions to the petitioner herein in Ext.P3 ex parte award, and the parties representing the Management were directed to reinstate the workman. It is submitted that in such circumstances no prejudice will be caused to the workman by setting aside Ext.P3 award insofar as it relates to the petitioner also.
3. Heard the learned Government Pleader also.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, I am of the view that the petitioner is right in contending that since no separate claim has been raised against the petitioner and the claim against the petitioner is common with the claim against the Chairman and the General Manager of Casino Hotels Limited, no purpose will be served by allowing the petition filed by the petitioner for setting aside the ex parte award. That apart, it is clear from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Haryana Suraj Malting Ltd Vs. Phool Chand; (2018) 16 SCC 567, that even after the award became 2025:KER:78643 WP(C) NO. 28104 OF 2025 6 enforceable the application for setting aside the ex parte Award is maintainable. It was held:-
''35.Merely because an award has become enforceable, does not necessarily mean that it has become binding. For an award to become binding, it should be passed in compliance with the principles of natural justice. An award passed denying an opportunity of hearing when there was a sufficient cause for non-appearance can be challenged on the ground of it being nullity. An award which is a nullity cannot be and shall not be a binding award. In case a party is able to show sufficient cause within a reasonable time for its non- appearance in the Labour Court/Tribunal when it was set ex parte, the Labour Court/Tribunal is bound to consider such an application and the application cannot be rejected on the ground that it was filed after the award had become enforceable. The Labour Court/Tribunal is not functus officio after the award has become enforceable as far as setting aside an ex parte award is concerned. It is within its powers to entertain an application as per the scheme of the Act and in terms of the rules of natural justice. It needs to be restated that the 2025:KER:78643 WP(C) NO. 28104 OF 2025 7 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a welfare legislation intended to maintain industrial peace. In that view of the matter, certain powers to do justice have to be conceded to the Labour Court/Tribunal, whether we call it ancillary, incidental or inherent. '' It is also clear from the judgment in Haryana Suraj Malting Ltd (supra) that the provisions of the Limitation Act are not applicable to the Labour Court/Tribunal. I am also of the opinion that when a composite claim is made against two different entities as in this case, an Award cannot be passed against one entity alone. The Award cannot be sustained against one entity while the proceedings in respect of the other entities are pending before the Labour Court. When a composite claim is raised against two different entities and when the Industrial Dispute at the instance of one of the entities is still pending adjudication, no purpose would be served by treating the Award as final against one of the entities. Therefore, without going into any other aspect into the matter, I am of 2025:KER:78643 WP(C) NO. 28104 OF 2025 8 the view that Exhibit P3 Award in so far as it relates to the petitioner, Exhibit P5 order refusing to set aside the ex parte Award and Exhibit P6 order are liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, I quash Exhibits P3, P5 and P6 and direct that the claim, if any against the petitioner shall also be adjudicated along with the proceedings now pending before the Labour Court as I.D. No.148 of 2022. In other words, it is made clear that the petitioner will be entitled to contest I.D. No.148 of 2022 stated to be now pending before the Labour Court, Ernakulam on merits.
I place on record the assistance rendered to this Court by Sri. Benny P. Thomas, Senior Advocate, who assisted this Court in this matter, at the request of the Court.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P. JUDGE ats/ajt 2025:KER:78643 WP(C) NO. 28104 OF 2025 9 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28104/2025 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. G.O. (RT) NO.837/2022/LBR DATED 15.07.2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM STATEMENT IN ID 148/2022 DATED 25.11.2022 FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 03.06.2023 IN ID 148/2022 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF COMMON ORDER IN IA 272/2023 AND IA 273/2023 IN ID 148/2022 DATED 04.11.2023 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN IA NO. 6/2024 IN ID 148/2022 DATED 04.05.2024 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF COMMON ORDER IN IA 136/2024 AND IA 137/2024 IN ID 148/2022 DATED 04.01.2025 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT