[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
P.A.Jose vs State Of Kerala on 7 January, 2026
1
W.P(C) No.32399 of 2019 2026:KER:756
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 17TH POUSHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 32399 OF 2019
PETITIONER:
P.A.JOSE, AGED 72 YEARS,
CHAIRMAN, JOSCO JEWELLERY, G.B ROAD,
PALAKAD, PIN-678001.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.S.RANJIT (K/250/1999)
SRI.GOKUL DAS V.V.H.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRSENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
LABOUR DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.
2 K.M RAJEEV, AGED 43 YEARS,
S/O. MADHAVAN ACHARY, KALIMADAPARAMBIL VEEDU,
THIRUNELLY, KANNADI POST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 678701.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.V.N.HARIDAS
SMT.SIBY.P.JOSE
SRI.K.T.BOSCO
SMT.MABLE C KURIAN, SR GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.01.2026, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
W.P(C) No.32399 of 2019 2026:KER:756
JUDGMENT
The 2nd respondent was a workman at the
institution/jewellery represented by the petitioner herein. The
2nd respondent complained that he was denied employment
by the management, whereas the management took the
stand that the 2nd respondent was terminated on the basis of
an alleged theft committed by him. The Government referred
the dispute for consideration by the Industrial Tribunal,
Palakkad. The Tribunal by the impugned award at Ext.P1
found that there was no proper enquiry conducted in the
matter, and there was a denial of employment to the
workman. An amount of Rs.3,50,000/- was directed to be
paid as compensation, and in the alternative, to reinstate the
workman with continuity in service. It is seeking to challenge
this award that the petitioner has filed the captioned writ
petition.
2. Heard S.Ranjit, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Sri.V.N.Haridas, the learned counsel for the 2nd
W.P(C) No.32399 of 2019 2026:KER:756
respondent.
3. The main contention raised by the petitioner is to
the effect that the Tribunal did not afford a reasonable
opportunity for adducing evidence to prove the misconduct of
the workman, that the evidence adduced was only with
reference to the holding of enquiry, that once the preliminary
issue was found against the management the Tribunal ought
to have permitted evidence to be adduced by the Management
on the larger issue. The petitioner also relies on the judgment
of the Apex Court in Cooper Engineering Ltd. v. P.P.
Mundhe [1975 (2) SCC 661].
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 2nd
respondent would contend that there is no illegality in issuing
a composite order relying on the judgment of this Court in
Cherpu Service Coop. Bank v. Industrial Tribunal [1979
KHC 447].
5. I have considered the rival contentions and
connected records. A reading of the impugned award at Ext.P1
W.P(C) No.32399 of 2019 2026:KER:756
would show that the Tribunal has considered whether the
workman was terminated after a proper enquiry. The fact that
the evidence adduced by the management was only for
proving the nature of the enquiry is also recorded in
paragraph 28 of the award. Thus, the findings in Ext.P1 were
essentially as regards the preliminary issue as to whether
there was an enquiry in accordance with law. The procedure
to be adopted once it is found that there was no proper
domestic enquiry is laid down by the Apex Court in Cooper
Engineering Ltd. (supra) as under:-
"22. We are, therefore, clearly of opinion that when a case of
dismissal or discharge of an employee is referred for industrial
adjudication the Labour Court should first decide as a
preliminary issue whether the domestic enquiry has violated
the principles of natural justice. When there is no domestic
enquiry or defective enquiry is admitted by the employer,
there will be no difficulty. But when the matter is in
controversy between the parties that question must be
decided as a preliminary issue. On that decision being
pronounced it will be for the management to decide whether
it will adduce any evidence before the labour court. If it
chooses not to adduce any evidence, it will not be thereafter
permissible in any proceeding to raise the issue. We should
also make it clear that there will be no justification for any
W.P(C) No.32399 of 2019 2026:KER:756
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."
Thus, once it is found that the enquiry was not proper, the
management is to be permitted to adduce evidence on the
larger issue before the Tribunal. In the case at hand, there is
no dispute that such a course of action has not been adopted
by the Tribunal.
6. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the 2nd
respondent on the judgment of this Court in Cherpu Service
Coop. Bank (supra) would not be of any help to him because,
in that case, the management had admittedly let in evidence
on the merits of the matter as specifically recorded in
paragraph 3 of the judgment. It is on the basis of the afore
that this Court found that the law laid in Cooper Engineering
Ltd.(supra) requires to be applied depending upon the facts
and circumstances of this case. In such circumstances, I am
W.P(C) No.32399 of 2019 2026:KER:756
of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to succeed.
7. In the normal course, in the light of the above
contention, the matter requires to be sent back to the Tribunal
for fresh consideration. However, I note that the complaint of
the 2nd respondent is with reference to the denial of
employment in the year 2011. The impugned order itself was
passed in November 2018. The 2nd respondent has chosen to
prefer an application under Section 17B of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, seeking back wages only on 16.12.2025.
Though it is stated in the affidavit that the 2nd respondent was
not employed after the termination, this statement cannot be
swallowed without a pinch of salt on account of the afflux of
time. If statement to that effect was correct, the 2nd
respondent would have filed the claim under Section 17B of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, during 2018 itself.
Therefore, I am of the opinion that it would be in the interest
of all to have a quietus to the dispute. In such circumstances,
Ext.P1 would stand sustained, holding that Rs.2,75,000/-
W.P(C) No.32399 of 2019 2026:KER:756
alone need be paid as compensation by the management.
Resultantly, with the afore modification, this writ
petition would stand disposed of.
Sd/-
HARISANKAR V. MENON
JUDGE
ln
W.P(C) No.32399 of 2019 2026:KER:756
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 32399 OF 2019
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 27-11-2018 IN I.D
NO.8./2012 BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL,
PALAKKAD.
