Kerala High Court
Jose Peter vs The Managing Director on 8 February, 2024
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 19TH MAGHA, 1945
WA NO. 1664 OF 2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.06.2016 IN WPC NO.17107/2009
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
JOSE PETER,
VANPILLIL VEEDU, PALAKUZHA, KOOTHATTUKULAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.A.JAYASANKAR
SRI.ASHWIN SETHUMADHAVAN
SRI.MANU GOVIND
SMT.B.MEERA
SRI.S.SABARINADH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM-682 031.
2 PERIYAR LATEX LIMITED,
KAVAKKADU, MUVATTUPUZHA-686 668,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS
SRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.02.2024,
ALONG WITH WA.1931/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Writ Appeal Nos.1664 & 1931 of 2016
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 19TH MAGHA, 1945
WA NO. 1931 OF 2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.06.2016 IN WPC NO.8189/2009
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
JOSE PETER,
VANPILLIL VEEDU, PALAKUZHA,
KOOTHATTUKULAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.A.JAYASANKAR
SMT.MEERA BALAKRISHNAN
SRI.ASHWIN SETHUMADHAVAN
SRI.MANU GOVIND
SRI.S.SABARINADH
RESPONDENT/PEITIONER:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
PERIYAR LATEX LIMITED,
KAVAKKADU, MUVATTUPUZHA - 686 668.
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS
SRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS
SRI.GOVIND VIJAYAKUMARAN NAIR
SRI.HARAN THOMAS GEORGE
SRI.ISAAC THOMAS
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.02.2024, ALONG WITH WA.1664/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Writ Appeal Nos.1664 & 1931 of 2016
3
AMIT RAWAL & C.S.SUDHA, JJ.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Writ Appeal Nos.1664 & 1931 of 2016
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 08th day of February, 2024
JUDGMENT
Amit Rawal, J.
Appellant was employed as a workman in the management in
1991. In February 2002, was called by the superior officer to submit
resignation as there was some discrepancy with regard to the weighing
of by-products and its billing as, during the relevant period, was
discharging the functions of Supervisor. On 20/04/2002 submitted a
resignation, however, the intimation of the same was received on
24/04/2002. The management did not take any action for recovery of
the loss caused on the basis of the inspection report as evident from
Ext.P1 memo issued to the Factory Manager in charge and Ext.P2
reply, attributing some dereliction on the part of the appellant.
Labour Court found that resignation was submitted by exerting undue
influence as management had threatened the workman of dire
Writ Appeal Nos.1664 & 1931 of 2016
consequences and that the workman submitted his resignation with the
assurance that no action would be taken, thus set aside the same and
ordered for reinstatement without back-wages. Said order was assailed
by the management as well as workman in two writ petitions, i.e., W.P.
(C) No.8189/2009 and W.P.(C).No.17107/2009.
2. Learned Single Bench of this Court vide common
judgment dated 24/06/2016 set aside the award of the Labour Court
finding that resignation was willful.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/
workman submitted that learned Single Judge while exercising the
power of judicial review treated the writ as an appeal and examined the
evidence again, which is not permissible in view of the ratio decidendi
culled out in the Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi v. Hindalco Industries
Limited, (2014) 11 SCC 85. Award of the Labour Court was based
upon the preponderance of the evidence. No record of the Labour Court
was summoned to render findings against the appellant while deciding
the writ petitions. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the management
Writ Appeal Nos.1664 & 1931 of 2016
supported the findings of the learned Single Bench by submitting that
resignation was voluntary, without exerting any influence as the
management abided by the promise of not taking any legal action for
recovery of the loss from the appellant.
5. We have heard counsel for the parties and appraised the
paper books and of the view that the Labour Court could not without
any evidence on record find a total apposite opinion in treating the
resignation to be under caution or by exerting undue influence. The
resignation letter was voluntarily signed by the appellant including the
contents. It is also a matter of record that the department/management
did not take any action for recovery of the alleged loss as evident from
the contents of Ext.P1 memo and Ext.P2 reply of the Factory Manager.
Rather in Ext.M3 before the Labour Court, the workman proved the
said action of the management. Learned Single Judge, noticing all these
facts, set aside the award of the Labour Court ordering reinstatement of
the workman. We do not find any illegality of perversity in the order of
the single Bench, for, cumulative effect of all the documents Ext.P1, P2
etc. was seen to form a different opinion that the one arrived at by the
Writ Appeal Nos.1664 & 1931 of 2016
Labour Court. Judicial review cannot always termed to be an exercise
of the power of the appellate court, but to examine the illegality and
arbitrariness of the order, much less fallacy. Precisely this is what has
been done.
Appeals sans merit, accordingly dismissed.
SD/-
AMIT RAWAL
JUDGE
SD/-
C.S.SUDHA
JUDGE
ak
