The Managing Director vs Alex Samraj J
2023 Latest Caselaw 2840 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
  WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1944
                    WP(C) NO. 5305 OF 2023

PETITIONER/S:

           SOUTHERN FILED VENTURES (P) LTD,
           MERCHISTEN ESTATE, PONMUDI P O,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 551,
           REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

           BY ADVS.
           N.ANILKUMAR
           TONY GEORGE THOMAS
           GOKUL KRISHNA

RESPONDENT/S:

    1      ALEX SAMRAJ J
           EX-FIELD OFFICER, MERCHISTEN ESTATE,
           PONMUDI, TRIVANDRUM, RESIDING AT ANGEL HOUSE,
           PANACHAMOODU, URIYAKODU P O,
           VELLANADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 543.

    2      LABOUR COURT,
           KOLLAM, T D NAGAR, VIDYA NAGAR,
           KOLLAM, KERALA-691 013.



           SMT. MABLE C KURIAN, SR. GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 01.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No. 5305 of 2023                  2




                                    JUDGMENT

The petitioner herein has approached this Court challenging the

preliminary award passed by the Labour Court in ID No.54/2019. By the

award, the Labour Court, holding that the domestic enquiry conducted was in

violation of the Principles of Natural Justice, set aside the enquiry report, and

the management was permitted to adduce evidence to substantiate the

charge against the delinquent workers.

2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

3. I find that the Division Bench of this Court in Chelamattom

Sree Krishna Swami Devaswom Trust v. State of Kerala [2022 (4) KLT

90] had lamented that the writ petitions challenging the preliminary orders

passed by the Labour Court continued to be entertained by this Court leading

to avoidable procrastination of the main proceedings before the

Court/Tribunal. It was observed that parties who challenge the preliminary

orders ought to be relegated to the Labour Court for the culmination of

proceedings before that Court with the liberty to challenge the preliminary

order if required along with the final award. The learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner argued that, earlier, the Division Bench in St. Thomas

Missions Hospital v. State of Kerala and another [2007 (2) KLT 415]

had occasion to observe that if an order is so perverse, interference can be

warranted. From the order impugned, I find no reason to hold that the order

passed by the Labour Court suffers from any patent perversity or that it has

resulted in any patent and the evident failure of justice.

In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the

preliminary order passed by the Labour Court, which is impugned in this writ

petition. Reserving the right of the petitioner to challenge the preliminary

order along with the final order as observed in Chelamattom (supra), this

writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE NS

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5305/2023

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY AWARD PASSED ON 29.01.2022 IN INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO.54/2019.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 6/2/18. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DISPUTE RAISED BY THE WORK MAN DATED 20.04.2019.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 15.10.2020.