Kerala High Court
Ratan Plantations vs Malanadu Plantations Employees Union on 24 June, 2025
2025:KER:45556
W.P.(C).No.18509 of 2010
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 18509 OF 2010
PETITIONER:
RATAN PLANTATIONS
K. CHAPPATHU, PIN - 685 506,
IDUKKI DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
BY ADV SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS
RESPONDENTS:
1 MALANADU PLANTATION EMPLOYEES UNION,
CITU, PULIYANMALA, IDUKKI DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL SECRETARY.
2 INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL,
IDUKKI
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 24.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:45556
W.P.(C).No.18509 of 2010
2
S.MANU, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.18509 of 2010
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of June, 2025
JUDGMENT
Ext.P3 award dated 28.10.2009 in I.D.No.49/2006 of the
Industrial Tribunal, Idukki is under challenge in this Writ
Petition.
2. Petitioner is engaged in cultivation and production of
tea. The respondent is a trade union of plantation workers. One
Mr.Shaji Mathew, hereinafter referred as workman was a field
worker of the petitioner. On account of irregular payment of
wages, bonus and other benefits, the members of the 1 st
respondent union approached the management on several
occasions and sought redressal of the grievances. It is alleged
that the management assured the union that arrears of wages
and other benefits would be disbursed before re-opening of the
schools in 2002 June. Since payment was not made as
2025:KER:45556
promised, the workmen assembled at 4 pm on 3.6.2002 and
protested. Mr.Shaji Mathew, workman concerned, is alleged to
have entered the estate office at 4 pm on 3.6.2002 without prior
permission, abused and threatened the Asst. Manager and other
two office staff saying that they should not leave the office.
Later, the workman forcefully entered the office of Asst.
Manager, went inside the staff cabin and threatened the staff
asking them not to contact anybody over telephone. When the
Asst. Manager tried to contact somebody over phone, the
workman threatened him that the Asst. Manager would not
leave the place alive if he attempted to contact anybody.
Workman then went out and disconnected the telephone line.
He came back to the office and addressed the staff and the
Asst. Manager in filthy language and retained them from 4 pm
to 8 pm.
3. Petitioner management initiated domestic inquiry.
The inquiry officer on conclusion of the inquiry found that the
2025:KER:45556
workman was guilty of the misconduct alleged against him.
Report of the inquiry officer was sent to the workman and he
was given an opportunity to submit his explanation. Workman
did not respond. Management thereafter concurred with the
conclusions of the Inquiry Officer and decided to impose
punishment of dismissal from service. An order dismissing the
workman from service was issued on 15.1.2003.
4. First respondent raised a dispute and on failure of
conciliation, Government by order dated 28.8.2005 referred the
following issue for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal -
'whether the dismissal of Sri.Shaji by the management of
M/s.Ratan Plantation Ltd., K. Chappath is justified? If not, what
relief he is entitled to?'
5. The Tribunal on 28.4.2008 passed a preliminary order
holding that the domestic inquiry was conducted in violation of
the principles of natural justice. The domestic inquiry was set
aside. Since the management had pleaded in their written
2025:KER:45556
statement that they may be given opportunity to adduce fresh
evidence in case the inquiry was set aside, the Tribunal
permitted the management to adduce fresh evidence. Three
witnesses were examined on the side of the management before
the Tribunal and the workman was also examined. Exts.M1 to
M13 were marked on the side of the management. On
conclusion of the proceedings, the Tribunal held that the
misconduct alleged against the workman was proved. However,
the Tribunal held that the extreme punishment of dismissal
awarded to the workman was too harsh and disproportionate.
Further the Tribunal held that loss of entire back wages during
the period the workman was out of employment would be an
adequate punishment. Management was directed to reinstate
the workman without back wages or any other benefits but with
continuity of service.
6. Though notice was served, there is no appearance for
the 1st respondent before this court.
2025:KER:45556
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the Industrial Tribunal went wrong in holding that the domestic
inquiry was vitiated. He pointed out that the reason given by the
Tribunal for holding so was that sufficient opportunity was not
provided to the workman. He, with reference to the facts stated
by the Tribunal, pointed out that several postings were granted
by the Inquiry Officer on the request of the workman and the
workman however did not defend himself. The learned counsel
placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. Workman [AIR 1965 SC 155] to
contend that it would be unreasonable to suggest that in a
domestic inquiry it is the right of the charge sheeted employee
to seek for as many adjournments as he likes. He hence
contended that the finding in the preliminary order of the
Tribunal was therefore improper. The learned counsel also
contended that the Tribunal committed a grave error by
interfering with the punishment imposed on the workman. He
2025:KER:45556
contended that the Tribunal directed to reinstate the workman
though without back wages by exceeding its jurisdiction. He
submitted that in the nature of the misconduct proved against
the workman, the Tribunal ought to have found that the
punishment was proportionate and justified. Relying on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Workmen of
Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (Pvt.) Ltd. v. The
Management and others [(1973) 1 SCC 813] the learned
counsel submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly
held in the said judgment that once the misconduct is proved
either in the inquiry conducted by an employer or by the
evidence placed before a Tribunal for the first time, punishment
imposed cannot be interfered with by the Tribunal except in
cases where the punishment is so harsh as to suggest
victimization. He hence submitted that the impugned award to
the extent it directs the workman to be reinstated is liable to be
set aside.
2025:KER:45556
8. As far as the challenge against the finding in the
preliminary order is concerned, I am of the view that the same
need not be examined and any finding needs to be given as the
management was thereafter permitted to adduce evidence and
the Tribunal concluded that the management succeeded in
proving the misconduct alleged against the workman.
9. It is well settled that the Industrial Tribunal has the
power to modify the punishment imposed by the employer.
However, the said power has to be exercised only with a high
amount of care and caution. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in various judgments the Tribunal has to keep in mind
while exercising the discretion under Section 11A that misplaced
sympathy will cause more harm to the establishment which
provides source of livelihood to many employees than any good
for the employee concerned. Interference cannot be made by
the Tribunal under Section 11A of the Act in a casual manner or
as a matter of course.
2025:KER:45556
10. The only reason given by the Tribunal for modifying
the punishment was that all workers of the estate were on the
path of agitation demanding arrears of wages, bonus and other
benefits. The Tribunal has not exercised discretion with proper
reference to the proved misconduct of the workman. The
Tribunal has not pointed out any mitigating circumstances with
respect to the workman in support of its decision to modify the
punishment. Therefore, it is clear that the Tribunal has exercised
the discretionary jurisdiction under Section 11A in a casual
manner and not judiciously.
11. In view of the above conclusion, I find it appropriate
to set aside Ext.P3 award to the extent it interferes with the
punishment imposed by the management. The direction issued
by the Tribunal to reinstate workman shall stand set aside.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
S.MANU
JUDGE
skj
2025:KER:45556
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF CLAIM STATEMENT
DTD.6.11.2006 OF THE UNION.
EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT
DTD.16.2.2007 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF AWARD DTD.28.10.2009
PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL.
EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S LETTER
DTD.18.3.2010 TO MR.SHAJI MATHEW.
