Kerala Government Rubber Plantation vs The Managing Director
2024 Latest Caselaw 32500 Ker

Kerala High Court

Kerala Government Rubber Plantation vs The Managing Director on 8 November, 2024

                                 1
WP(C) NO. 30410 OF 2019                           2024:KER:89402

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON

   FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1946

                      WP(C) NO. 30410 OF 2019


PETITIONER:

          KERALA GOVERNMENT RUBBER PLANTATION,
          THOZHILALI UNION, A.I.T.U.C. (H,O) PUNALUR,
          KOLLAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY,
          SRI. AJAYAPRASAD,


          BY ADVS.
          MANOJ RAMASWAMY
          JOLIMA GEORGE
          C.B.SABEELA




RESPONDENT:

          THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
          REHABILITATION PLANTATION LIMITED,
          PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691305.


          BY ADVS.
          SRI.SAJI VARGHESE
          SMT.MARIAM MATHAI



     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
08.11.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                2
WP(C) NO. 30410 OF 2019                       2024:KER:89402


                            JUDGMENT

The petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition

challenging the findings in Ext.P7 award dated 26.02.2019,

issued by the Labour Court, Kollam, in I.D.No.52 of 2013.

2. The respondent herein initiated disciplinary steps

against Sri.Selvarajan, who was employed with the

respondent, essentially on the allegation that he abused and

manhandled the Supervisor, one Sri.Viswambharan. Ext.P1

was the enquiry report dated 20.04.2012, submitted by the

Enquiry Officer. The matter was referred for adjudication by

the Labour Court, pursuant to the orders issued by the

Government. The Labour Court found that the findings in

Ext.P1 cannot be acted upon. However, the respondent

Management was permitted to adduce evidence, and on that

basis three witnesses were examined from the side of the

workman and four from the side of the respondent

Management. By Ext.P7 award dated 26.02.2019 order the

Labour Court found that the respondent Management was

WP(C) NO. 30410 OF 2019 2024:KER:89402

justified in proceeding against Sri.Selvarajan. However, by

Ext.P7 order, the Labour Court modified the orders issued

against the workmen holding that the workmen would be

deemed to have been discharged and therefore, he would be

entitled to get all service benefits. It is challenging the finding

in Ext.P7 that the captioned writ petition is filed.

3. I have heard Kum. Namitha Babu, learned counsel

for the petitioner, Sri.Saji Varghese T.G., learned counsel for

the respondent herein.

4. Kum. Namitha Babu, learned counsel for the

petitioner, vehemently points out that the findings in Ext.P7

have been rendered without taking note of the contentions

raised by the employee to the effect that the management

had not given a proper opportunity to represent the matter

at the stage of enquiry. She points out that in the light of the

above, the employee requires to be reinstated in service.

5. However, I notice that the final order at Ext.P7 has

been issued not on the basis of Ext.P1. The management as

well as the employee were permitted to adduce evidence, and

WP(C) NO. 30410 OF 2019 2024:KER:89402

it is on the basis of such evidence adduced by both sides that

the order at Ext.P7 has been issued by the Labour Court.

Resultantly, I am of the opinion that the petitioner will

not be entitled for any reliefs. Therefore, the captioned writ

petition would stand dismissed.

At this juncture, Kum.Namitha Babu points out that the

workmen have not been provided the benefits pursuant to the

order at Ext.P7. If there are any such benefits remain to be

extended to the workmen pursuant to the directions

contained in paragraph No.17 of Ext.P7, the respondent

management to take effective steps to disburse the same as

expeditiously as possible.

Sd/-

HARISANKAR V. MENON JUDGE Skk//27.11.2024

WP(C) NO. 30410 OF 2019 2024:KER:89402

APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO.30410 OF 2019

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 20.04.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE ENQUIRY OFFICER.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 23.06.2018 FILED BY THE WORKMAN BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM IN I.D NO.52 OF 2013.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROOF AFFIDAVIT DATED 25.09.2018 FILED BY WW3, AJAYA PRASAD, SECRETARY OF THE PETITIONER UNION.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CHIEF AFFIDAVIT OF MW3 DATED 26.03.2018 FILED BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM,

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTES FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNION.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY AWARD DATED 31.01.2018 PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 26.02.2019.

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE PROOF AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE MW2 DATED 26.3.2018 BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM