Kerala High Court
M/S. Upasana Healthcare & Hospitals Pvt ... vs General Secretary on 8 January, 2025
Author: Murali Purushothaman
Bench: Murali Purushothaman
WP(C) NO. 32053 OF 2024 : 1 :
2025:KER:1051
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 18TH POUSHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 32053 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
M/S. UPASANA HEALTHCARE & HOSPITALS PVT LTD,
Q.S.ROAD, KOLLAM, KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
MR.JIJU V.S, PIN - 691001
BY ADVS.
ABEL TOM BENNY
D.PREM KAMATH
TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL)
AARON ZACHARIAS BENNY
AMRUTHA SELVAM
GENTLE C.D.
K.R.PAUL
CLINT JUDE LEWIS
RESPONDENTS:
1 GENERAL SECRETARY,
KERALA HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES SANGH (BMS) MAZDOOR
BHAVAN, CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691001
2 LABOUR COURT,
VIDYA NAGAR,CIVIL STATION P.O, KOLLAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDING OFFICER- 691013
BY ADVS.
WP(C) NO. 32053 OF 2024 : 2 :
2025:KER:1051
ARUN CHAND
VINAYAK G MENON(K/1013/2016)
BHARAT VIJAY P.(K/000976/2018)
MINU VITTORRIA PAULSON(K/739/2020)
THAREEQ ANVER K.(K/000942/2018)
K.SALMA JENNATH(K/001505/2018)
NEETHU S.(K/1875/2019)
ARCHANA P.P.(K/4093/2023)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 08.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 32053 OF 2024 : 3 :
2025:KER:1051
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed by the
Management challenging Ext.P4 preliminary
award passed by the Labour Court, Kollam.
2. The 1st respondent, the General Secretary
of the Trade Union raised an industrial dispute
regarding the dismissal of workman named
Rajeev. J and the Government referred the matter
for adjudication by the Labour Court under
section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947. The issue referred for adjudication before
the Labour Court is "whether the dismissal from
2025:KER:1051
service of Sri.Rajeev J., Office Assistant, Upasana
Hospital, Kollam by the management is justifiable
or not?. If not, what relief he is entitled to?".
3. A claim statement was filed by the union
wherein it is contended that the dismissal of the
workman is illegal and he is entitled to get
reinstatement in service with continuity of service
and other benefits.
4. The writ petitioner/Management filed
written statement resisting the claim statement
and contended that the petitioner is not a
workman as defined under the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 and he was dismissed from service after
a fair enquiry, complying with all principles of
natural justice.
2025:KER:1051
5. The Labour Court framed a preliminary
issue regarding the validity of the domestic
enquiry.
6. The Labour Court by Ext.P4 preliminary
award, found that the domestic enquiry was
conducted by the enquiry officer in total
disregard to the principles of natural justice and
there are procedural irregularities. The Labour
Court found that the enquiry report submitted by
the enquiry officer is not valid and proper.
Accordingly, the enquiry report was declared
invalid and set aside.
7. Challenging Ext.P4 preliminary award, this
writ petition is filed. It is contended that the
findings of the Labour Court that the enquiry was
2025:KER:1051
not conducted in compliance with natural justice
are incorrect and that the enquiry was conducted
after following all procedure and the findings are
based on evidence.
8. This Court by order dated 09-09-2024
stayed all further proceedings pursuant to I.D No.
40 of 2022 on the files of the Labour Court,
Kollam.
9. Heard Sri.Benny Thomas, the learned
senior counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Arun
Chand the learned counsel for the 1st respondent.
10. The learned senior counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the workmen had partly
admitted the guilt and the workman was given
sufficient opportunity to defend the case. The
2025:KER:1051
learned senior counsel relied on the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana
and Another v. Rattan Singh [1977 (2) SCC
491] to contend that, in a domestic enquiry, the
strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under
the Evidence Act are not applicable.
11. Sri.Arun Chand, the learned counsel
for the 1st respondent submitted that the
challenge against the preliminary award is not
maintainable and the enquiry was conducted in
total disregard to the principles of natural justice
and the procedures.
12. It is to be noted that Ext.P4 is only a
preliminary award. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Cooper Engineering Ltd v. P. P. Mundhe
2025:KER:1051
[AIR 1975 SC 1900: 1975 (2) SCC 661]
cautioned against stalling the proceedings before
the Labour Court on a finding recorded on a
preliminary issue. The Court observed thus:-
"...We should also make it clear that
there will be no justification for any
party to stall the final adjudication of
the dispute by the Labour Court by
questioning its decision with regard
to the preliminary issue when the
matter, if worthy, can be agitated
even after the final award. It will be
also legitimate for the High Court to
refuse to intervene at this stage. We
are making these observations in our
anxiety that there is no undue delay
in industrial adjudication."
13. In S.K. Verma v. Mahesh Chandra
[1983 (4) SCC 214 : AIR 1984 SC 1462] and in
2025:KER:1051
D.P.Maheshwari (supra), the Apex Court
observed that all issues whether preliminary or
otherwise should be decided together and even if
a decision is rendered on preliminary issue, the
Courts shall not intervene at the interlocutory
stage under Article 226 of the Constitution.
14. Relying on the decisions of the Apex
Court in Cooper Engineering Ltd, S.K. Verma
and D.P. Maheshwari (supra), this Court, in
Kerala State Electricity Board v. Rajamoni
[1992 (2) KLT 66], held that the High Court
shall not interfere with preliminary orders of the
Labour Court and observed thus:
"4. If the petitioners are aggrieved
against the final award, they have
2025:KER:1051
adequate remedy at that stage. If
opportunity has not been given to
the petitioners to give evidence or if
the Tribunal proceeded in violation
of the principles of natural justice,
the award can be challenged at that
stage. If the award is in favour of the
petitioners, the petitioners cannot
be aggrieved and, therefore, there is
no ground for staying the further
proceedings, in any case, at this
stage in this Original Petition. A
speedy disposal of the industrial
dispute is the prime requisite and
this court will not be instrumental in
stalling the proceedings and
arresting final adjudication on the
merit. Without prejudice to the
petitioners' right to raise all the
grounds raised in this petition if they
are aggrieved at a later stage."
15. This Court in Kerala Chemicals and
2025:KER:1051
Proteins Ltd. v. Labour Court, Ernakulam
[2014 (4) KHC 107 : 2014 (4) KLT SN 8: ILR
2014 (4) Ker. 585] considered the scope of
interference by High Court with preliminary
orders of Labour Court and after referring to the
decisions in S.K. Verma, D.P. Maheshwari and
Rajamoni (supra), held that this Court should
not interfere with preliminary orders of the
Labour Court, since such orders are capable of
being challenged along with the final order that
is to be passed by the Labour Court after
adjudication of the dispute.
16. In Amrita Institute of Medical
Sciences (AIMS) v. Labour Court [2017 (5)
KHC: 2017 (4) KLT 1040], this Court, referring
2025:KER:1051
to the decisions in Cooper Engineering Ltd and
D.P. Maheshwari (supra) observed that, the
rationale for the decision in D.P. Maheshwari
(supra), that the High Court in exercise of
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
should not stop proceedings before the Industrial
Tribunal so that a preliminary issue may be
decided by them, appears to be the finding that
neither the jurisdiction of the High Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution nor the
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article
136 should be allowed to be exploited by those
who can well afford to wait, to the detriment of
those who can ill afford to wait, by dragging the
latter from Court to Court for adjudication of
2025:KER:1051
peripheral issues, avoiding a decision on issues
more vital to them.
17. A Division Bench of this Court in
Chelamattom Sree Krishna Swami Devaswom
Trust v. State of Kerala and Others [2022 (4)
KHC 215] has held that a writ petition
challenging the preliminary order of the Labour
Court cannot normally be interfered with and the
parties are to be relegated to the Labour Court
for culmination of proceedings before the Court
and with liberty to challenge the preliminary
order, if required, along with the final award.
18. In the light of the dictum laid down in
the aforesaid judgments, I am not inclined to
interfere with Ext.P4 preliminary award.
2025:KER:1051
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed
without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to
challenge the preliminary award, if required,
along with the final awards.
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
JUDGE
SB
2025:KER:1051
APPENDIX
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM STATEMENT DATED
10.08.2022 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN
I.D.NO.40/2022 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT WITHOUT
ENCLOSURES DATED 09.06.2021IN I.D.NO.40/2022
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED
07.01.2023 IN I.D.NO.40/2022 BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY AWARD DATED
09.07.2024 IN I.D.NO.40/2022 PASSED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT THE TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE CUM
R1(A) SUSPENSION NOTICE DATED 05/09/2020 ISSUED BY
THE HR MANAGER OF THE PETITIONER HOSPITAL TO
THE WORKMAN
EXHIBIT THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 14/09/2020
R1(B) SUBMITTED BY THE WORKMAN TO HR MANAGER OF THE
PETITIONER HOSPITAL
EXHIBIT THE TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET DATED
R1(C) 23/09/2020 ISSUED BY THE HR MANAGER OF THE
PETITIONER HOSPITAL TO THE WORKMAN
