Kerala High Court
Medical Trust Hospital vs Bineetha Sukumaran on 6 March, 2025
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
2025:KER:18750
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 24282 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
MEDICAL TRUST HOSPITAL,
KALLUMOODU, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
THARA DEVI S.K.
BY ADVS.
P.RAMAKRISHNAN
PREETHI RAMAKRISHNAN (P-212)
T.C.KRISHNA
C.ANIL KUMAR
ASHA K.SHENOY
RESPONDENT:
BINEETHA SUKUMARAN,
PUTHIRETHU VEEDU, PALACE WARD,
KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA - 690 502
BY ADVS.
LIJU.V.STEPHEN
INDU SUSAN JACOB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
27.11.2024, THE COURT ON 06.03.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:18750
W.P.(C) No.24282/2021
:2:
N. NAGARESH, J.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No.24282 of 2021
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 6th day of March, 2025
JUDGMENT
~~~~~~~~~
The petitioner, a multispeciality hospital in
Kayamkulam, is challenging Exts.P5 and P10 orders and is
seeking to hold that the Award passed by the Labour Court,
Kollam on 08.04.2021 in ID No.49/2018 is final and is liable to
be published as provided in Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947.
2. The petitioner states that the respondent, who
was a Nursing Assistant, refused to accept communications
fixing duty hours. A show-cause memo was issued followed by
a chargesheet dated 02.11.2017. A domestic enquiry was
2025:KER:18750
conducted in which the respondent participated. The enquiry
officer submitted a report dated 16.03.2018 finding the
respondent guilty. Copy of enquiry report was provided to the
respondent and her reply was sought. After considering the
reply, the respondent was terminated from service by an order
dated 05.04.2018.
3. The respondent raised ID No.49/2018 before
the Labour Court, Kollam challenging the termination. In Ext.P1
Claim Statement, the respondent alleged that termination of her
service was in retaliation to a complaint filed by her along with
20 other staff, to the Assistant Labour Officer. The punishment
is by way of victimisation, she urged. The petitioner states that
the respondent did not question the conduct of enquiry, the
findings of enquiry officer or proportionality of punishment.
4. The petitioner filed Ext.P2 Written Statement.
The Labour Court examined the Enquiry Officer on 09.01.2021.
The Labour Court heard arguments on validity of the enquiry on
13.02.2020, 12.03.2020 and 14.05.2020. On 11.06.2020, the
2025:KER:18750
respondent filed Ext.P3 IA seeking to file an additional Claim
Statement. The petitioner filed Ext.P4 counter affidavit pointing
out that the Kerala Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957 did not
envisage an additional Claim Statement. However, the Labour
Court allowed the IA as per Ext.P5 order dated 12.11.2020.
5. The petitioner filed Ext.P6 IA seeking to
expunge the offensive observation in Ext.P5. The Labour Court
concluded hearing and posted the case to 28.04.2021 for
pronouncement of Award. On 28.04.2021, the respondent filed
a petition to review the order dated 11.02.2021 by which the
Labour Court reserved the case for passing the Award. The
petitioner filed written objection to the request. Without
considering the objection of the petitioner, the Labour Court, as
per Ext.P10 order dated 12.08.2021, allowed the IA filed by the
respondent exercising the power of review, setting aside order
dated 11.02.2021.
6. The petitioner states that though the Award
was passed on 08.04.2021 and it had been forwarded to the
2025:KER:18750
Government on 12.04.2021, the Labour Court allowed the IA on
12.08.2021. The petitioner's IA No.94/2020 for
review/correction of order in IA No.49/2020 was dismissed. The
petitioner would contend that Rule 10B of the Kerala Industrial
Disputes Rules, 1957 deals with proceedings before Labour
Courts and Tribunals. As per Rule 10B(1), the statement made
by the workman in the conciliation proceedings would form the
basis of the claim. The Kerala Industrial Disputes Rules do not
provide for filing of any additional Claim Statement.
7. The respondent resisted the writ petition filing
counter affidavit. The respondent stated that by an inadvertent
mistake, the ground of violation of the principles of natural
justice was not raised in the Claim Statement. Hence, an
application was filed for permission to file additional Claim
Statement. The Labour Court accepted the additional Claim
Statement. The additional Claim Statement did not alter the
nature of the dispute raised by the respondent.
2025:KER:18750
8. The respondent submitted that the labour
dispute cases are based on the policy of welfare and the
Industrial Disputes Act is a beneficial legislation and should be
construed in favour of the workmen. The respondent is mother
of two children and the elder child is suffering from cerebral
palsy. The writ petition is therefore only to be dismissed, urged
the respondent.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent.
10. Ext.P1 is the Claim Statement dated
14.03.2019 filed by the respondent. The petitioner filed Written
Statement dated 11.07.2019. The Labour Court heard
arguments on validity of the enquiry, on 13.02.2020, 12.03.2020
and 14.05.2020. On 11.06.2020, the respondent filed IA
No.49/2020 seeking permission to file additional Claim
Statement. The petitioner filed Ext.P4 counter affidavit in IA
No.49/2020. The petitioner submitted that there is no provision
2025:KER:18750
for filing of additional Claim Statement. The Labour Court,
however, allowed IA No.49/2020 as per order dated
12.11.2020.
11. The petitioner filed Ext.P6 IA No.94/2018
seeking to expunge offensive observation in Ext.P5. The
dispute was posted for Award to 08.04.2021. On the said date,
the Labour Court passed the Award and posted the case to
28.04.2021 for pronouncement of Award, as can be seen from
Ext.P7 copy of B Diary. On 28.04.2021, the respondent filed a
petition to review the order dated 11.02.2021 as per which the
Labour Court had reserved the dispute for passing of Award.
The respondent submitted that her Lawyer could not appear as
he was quarantined due to Covid-19 pandemic. Though the
petitioner submitted Ext.P9 written objection, the Labour Court
passed Ext.P10 order holding that considering the pandemic
and other consequences followed by it, the worker did not get
access to his lawyer on time and therefore the Court is not
inclined to dismiss the application on technical grounds. IA
2025:KER:18750
No.110/2021 filed by the respondent was allowed on condition
that the worker must get ready for final hearing on the validity of
enquiry on 17.08.2021 online.
12. The questions arising for consideration are
whether the Labour Court was justified in permitting the
respondent to file additional Claim Statement and whether the
Labour Court was justified in reopening the ID. Though Rule
10B of the Kerala Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957 lays down
procedure regarding the proceedings before the Labour Court
or Tribunal, the Rules do not specifically provide for filing
additional Claim Statement. However, the Labour Court being
conferred the powers to adjudicate disputes after taking
evidence, the Labour Court will always have the power to permit
parties to file additional pleadings and to adduce additional
evidence if situation so warrants.
13. In the present dispute, one has to keep in mind
that the Labour Court proceedings were during a period when
the State and the Country was afflicted with Covid-19
2025:KER:18750
pandemic. The Labour Court noted during the course of
hearing on the validity of enquiry that specific pleadings
challenging the validity of enquiry was not there in the Claim
Statement. The respondent has specifically sworn to an
affidavit to the effect that when the case was posted to
13.08.2020 in the Labour Court, the counsel appearing for the
respondent was quarantined due to Covid-19 pandemic. The
Labour Court therefore deemed it fit to give one more
opportunity to the respondent.
14. Considering the entire facts and circumstances
of the case and considering Exts.P5 and P10 orders of the
Labour Court, Kollam, I do not find any illegality warranting
interference.
The writ petition therefore fails and it is
dismissed.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE
aks/01.03.2025
2025:KER:18750
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24282/2021
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF CLAIM STATEMENT DATED
14/3/2019 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN ID
NO.49/2018.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT IN
I.D.NO.49 OF 20218 DATED 11/7/2019
FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF I.A. DATED 11/6/2020 WITH
THE ADDITIONAL STATEMENT FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT IN ID NO.49/2018.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT DATED
10/9/2020 IN I.A.NO.49/2020 IN
I.D.NO.49/2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 12/11/2020 IN
I.A.NO.49/2020 IN I.D.NO.49/2018 PASSED
BY THE LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.94/2020 IN
I.D.NO.49/2018 DATED 10/12/2020 FILED
BY THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF B DIARY PERTAINING TO ID
NO.49/2018 OF LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF I.A.110/2021 IN ID
NO.49/2018 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT ON
28/4/2021.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN OBJECTION IN
I.A.110/2021 IN I.D.NO.49/2018 FILED BY
THE PETITIONER.
2025:KER:18750
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 12/8/2021 IN
I.A.NO.110/2021 IN I.D.NO.49/2018
PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM.
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 14/9/2021 IN
I.A.NO.94/2020 IN I.D.NO.49/2018 PASSED
BY THE LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM.
