Kerala High Court
Medical Trust Hospital vs Smt. Bineetha Sukumaran on 19 September, 2025
WA NO.1489/2025 1
2025:KER:69828
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 28TH BHADRA, 1947
WA NO.1489 OF 2025
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.03.2025 IN WP(C)
NO.24282 OF 2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
MEDICAL TRUST HOSPITAL
KALLUMOODU, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
THARA DEVI S.K, PIN - 690502
BY ADV SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
SMT.BINEETHA SUKUMARAN
PUTHIRETHU VEEDU, PALACE WARD,
KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690502
BY ADVS.
SRI.LIJU.V.STEPHEN
SMT.INDU SUSAN JACOB
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
12.08.2025, THE COURT ON 19.09.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA NO.1489/2025 2
2025:KER:69828
JUDGMENT
Syam Kumar V.M., J.
This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 03.03.2025
of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.24282 of 2021. The
appellant was the petitioner in the said W.P.(C) and the respondent
was the respondent therein.
2. The respondent, who was a Nursing Assistant, was
terminated from service on 05.04.2018 after due enquiry. She raised
Industrial Dispute (ID) No.49 of 2018 before the Labour Court,
Kollam, and the case proceeded as envisaged. After the enquiry
officer was examined before the court, the respondent filed an I.A.
seeking permission to file an additional claim statement. An
objection was filed by the appellant to the said I.A., pointing out that
the Kerala Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957, do not envisage the filing
of an additional claim statement. The said objection was not
accepted by the Labour Court and vide Ext.P5 order dated
12.11.2020, the additional claim statement was accepted. Since in
Ext.P5 order, it had been erroneously stated that the appellant had
failed to point out the absence of pleadings regarding the validity of
the enquiry, an IA was filed by the appellant to expunge the
2025:KER:69828
observation. Thereafter, the ID was posted on various dates for
hearing the said IA, but there was no appearance for the respondent
consecutively. Finally, on 11.02.2021, the case was posted to
08.04.2021 for rendering the Award. On that date, the Award was
rendered and the case was posted for pronouncement to
28.04.2021. In the meantime, the respondent on 28.04.2021 applied
to review the order dated 11.02.2021, by which the case was
reserved for rendering the Award. No application for setting aside
the Award was filed. The Award, which had already been rendered,
remained, and it was sent to the Government for publication.
Appellant filed objections to the I.A. seeking review, pointing out that
the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to review its orders and that the
award, having already been passed on 08.04.2021, the earlier order
dated 11.02.2021 cannot now be reviewed. However, the
application for reviewing the Order was allowed by the Labour Court
by Ext.P10 order on 12.08.2021, and the award already rendered
was set aside. Aggrieved by the same, the Writ Petition was filed by
the appellant seeking to quash the Exts.P5 and P10 orders
rendered by the Labour Court, Kollam, allowing the respondent to
file the additional claim statement and reviewing its own earlier order
2025:KER:69828
dated 11.02.2021. The following prayers were sought in the W.P.
(C):
"a) A writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order
quashing and setting aside Exts.P5 and P10 orders ;
b) Hold that the Award passed by the Labour Court, Kollam
on 08.04.2021 in I.D.No.49/2018 is final and is liable to be
published as provided in Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes
Act ;
c) issue such other writ, order or direction as are deemed just
and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
3. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides,
dismissed the W.P.(C) inter alia holding that the Labour Court
proceedings were conducted during a period when the State and the
Country were affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, and considering
the entire facts and circumstances of the case, there was no
illegality in the orders rendered by the Labour Court, Kollam.
Aggrieved by the dismissal of the W.P. (C), this Writ Appeal has
been filed by the appellant.
4. Heard Sri.P.Ramakrishnan, Advocate appearing for the
appellant and Sri.Liju V.Stephen, Advocate appearing for the
2025:KER:69828
respondent.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is erroneous and
unsustainable in law. The learned Single Judge has overlooked the
legal position that Rule 10B of the Kerala Industrial Disputes Rules,
1957, which relates to proceedings before the Labour Court, does
not envisage even the filing of a claim statement, let alone adding or
amending a statement already filed. The learned Single Judge also
failed to note that the Labour Court had acted beyond its jurisdiction.
The Labour Court had no power to permit parties to file additional
pleadings or to adduce additional evidence after rendering of the
Award. The Labour Court should have recognised that the validity
of the enquiry was being challenged only after the enquiry officer's
examination and submission of the enquiry file, without stating any
valid reason for not raising the issue earlier. The fact that an enquiry
had been conducted was deliberately suppressed, despite being
mentioned in the written statement. Ext.P5 order allowing the
respondent to file an additional statement is therefore arbitrary and
illegal. Further, the Industrial Disputes Act does not empower the
Labour Court to review its own orders and hence, the Labour Court
2025:KER:69828
ought to have dismissed the application filed by the respondent
seeking to review the earlier order. Since the Labour Court
acknowledged that the award had been made and that it had been
sent to the Government for publication, that meant that the
respondent's application to review an earlier order that reserved the
dispute for an award could not be considered or entertained. Since
the award had already been forwarded to the Government under
Section 17 of the Act, no further adjudication was necessary or
permissible. The Labour Court's view that the enquiry's validity
needed to be decided and that parties should be heard before
passing a preliminary award is legally unsustainable. The final
award, having already been issued and sent for publication, the
Labour Court's order (Ext.P10) reviewing the earlier order of
11.02.2021, it is contended by the learned counsel, is unjustifiable
and unsustainable, and the learned Single Judge erred in failing to
take note of the same. It is further submitted that Rule 23 of the
Kerala Industrial Dispute Rules empowers the Labour Court to set
aside an ex parte order on an application made within 15 days of the
decision. The Rule also provides for a condonation of delay, in case
sufficient cause is shown. The application filed by the respondent
2025:KER:69828
was not for setting aside the ex parte order, and the relief sought
therein was for reviewing an order dated 11.02.2021, as per which
the dispute was taken for award. It is contended that even assuming
that it is an application for setting aside the order dated 11.02.2021,
the same has not been filed within 15 days of the order, and there
has been no application for condonation of delay as well. In view of
the same, it is contended that Ext.P10 order passed by the Labour
Court is arbitrary, illegal, and the learned Single Judge erred in
overlooking the same. The learned counsel thus sought to set aside
the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent contended that the judgment of the learned Single
Judge was validly rendered and the same does not call for
interference. It is contended that by an inadvertent mistake on the
part of the respondent, the ground of violation of principles of natural
justice was not raised in the claim statement, and hence an
application had to be filed for permission to file an additional claim
statement. The Labour Court had accepted the additional claim
statement, insofar as the same did not alter the nature of the dispute
raised by the respondent. It is further contended that the application
2025:KER:69828
that was preferred by the respondent was not properly worded, and
thus it happened to be filed seeking to review the order dated
11.02.2021. The said error, as properly noted by the Labour Court,
cannot disentitle a workman from the benefits of a welfare legislation
like the Industrial Dispute Act. It is contended that, being a beneficial
legislation, the Industrial Dispute Act should be constituted in favour
of the workmen and that the respondent is the mother of two
children, and the elder child is suffering from cerebral palsy.
Reliance is also placed on the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal and others [1980 KHC 490]
wherein it had been held that the Tribunal has power to pass orders
that it thinks fit in the interest of justice and that even though there is
no express prohibition in the Act or the Rules framed thereunder
giving Tribunal jurisdiction to do so, such orders could be issued by
the Tribunal. It has been held by the Supreme Court further that by
the settled rules of statutory construction, a Tribunal or body should
be considered to be endowed with such ancillary or incidental
powers as are necessary to discharge its functions effectively for the
purpose of doing justice between the parties. Tribunals should be
2025:KER:69828
considered as invested with such incidental or ancillary powers
unless there is an indication in the statute to the contrary. No such
statutory prohibition has been noted, and on the other hand, there
are indications which would show that the object has been to confer
wide powers to mitigate the rigour of the technicalities of law. As
regards an exparte award, it has been held by the Supreme Court in
Grindlays Bank (supra) that, where a party is prevented from
appearing at the hearing due to a sufficient cause, and is faced with
an exparte award, it is as if the party is visited with an award without
notice of the proceedings. Where the Tribunal proceeds to make an
award without notice to a party, the award is nothing but a nullity. In
such circumstances, the Tribunal has not only the power, but also
the duty to set aside the exparte award and to direct the matter to be
heard afresh. As regards the contention that the Tribunal has
become functus officio after rendering the award and therefore has
no jurisdiction to set aside the exparte award, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has in Grindlays Bank (supra) held that such a contention
cannot be sustained. It has been held that the proceedings with
regard to a reference under Section 10 of the Act are therefore not
deemed to be concluded until the expiry of 30 days from the
2025:KER:69828
publication of the award. Till then, the Tribunal retains jurisdiction
over the dispute referred to it for adjudication and up to that date, it
has the power to entertain an application in connection with such
dispute. Thus, it is contended that the Labour Court was not without
jurisdiction to set aside the award, which it is submitted had
effectively been rendered ex parte. Further reliance is placed by the
learned counsel for the respondent on the order dated 10.01.2022 of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court In Re : Cognizance for Extension of
Limitation, [2022 (1) KLT 315 (SC)] which was rendered whereby
inter alia, the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, was excluded
for the purposes of limitation, as prescribed under any general or
special laws, in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. It
is thus prayed by the learned counsel that the learned Single Judge
had correctly rendered the impugned judgment after taking due note
of the COVID-19 pandemic situation that prevailed, and hence the
same did not merit any interference.
7. We have heard both sides in detail and have considered
the contentions put forth. We note that the learned Single Judge has
specifically taken note of the fact that the Labour Court proceedings
had been held during COVID-19 pandemic period and that the
2025:KER:69828
respondent has specifically sworn to an affidavit to the effect that
when the case was posted before 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. Considering the entire facts and
circumstances of the case. The learned Single Judge has also
stated that Exts.P5 and P10 orders of the Labour Court, Kollam
impugned in the W.P.(C) have been considered and that no illegality
warranting interference has been noted. Taking note of the above as
well as the legal position as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Grindlays Bank (supra) as referred to above, we find no
reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
The Writ Appeal fails, and it is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
JUDGE
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M.
JUDGE
csl
