High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeDismissed

O.T. Alexander v. General Secretary, Industrial Complex Labour Union (INTUC) and Labour Court, Ernakulam

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 38281 OF 2018

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • EASWARAN S.
Judgment Date
2024-03-27
Court Decision / Holding
Writ petition stands dismissed; challenge against the preliminary award repelled.
Final Disposition
Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • O.T. Alexander

Respondents

  • General Secretary Industrial Complex Labour Union (INTUC), Mundakkal, Kollam-691 001
  • Labour Court Ernakulam, Cochin-682 031

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Paulson C. Varghese
  • • Smt. A. Sirji

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri B. Ashok Shenoy
  • • Sri K.V. George
  • • Sri P.N. Rajagopalan Nair
  • • Sri Riyal Devassy

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition challenges a Labour Court preliminary award in I.D. No.22 of 2016 dated 08.08.2018, which set aside the domestic enquiry conducted against the petitioner on grounds of violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner contends that the issue falls under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and should be entertainable in a writ petition. The respondent Labour Court’s order and the related enquiry record are central to this dispute, including the sequence of show-cause notices, the appointment of an Enquiry Officer, the charge sheet, and subsequent inquiry proceedings. The thrust of the court’s reasoning, however, relies on a binding precedent: Chelamattom Sree Krishna Swami Devaswom Trust v. State of Kerala and Others (2022(4) KHC 215), where a Division Bench held that a preliminary Labour Court award cannot be challenged in a writ petition under Articles 226/227. The Court had already issued an interim order on 26.11.2018 suspending the preliminary award, but in light of the supra Division Bench judgment, the writ petition is considered to be liable for dismissal. Consequently, the petition is dismissed and the challenge to the preliminary award repelled. Exhibit materials in the appendix detail the exhibit chronology surrounding the enquiry process initiated by the management and the delinquencies of the officer involved.

Provisions of Law Cited

Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Principles of natural justice
  • Writ petitions under Articles 226/227 cannot challenge a preliminary Labour Court award (as held in Chelamattom Sree Krishna Swami Devaswom Trust v. State of Kerala and Others, 2022(4) KHC 215)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner challenged the Labour Court’s preliminary award in I.D.No.22 of 2016 (08.08.2018) on grounds of violation of natural justice. The petitioner relies on constitutional articles and prevailing authorities, asserting maintainability of a writ petition to challenge a preliminary award. The court, however, places reliance on a binding precedent (Chelamattom Sree Krishna Swami Devaswom Trust v. State of Kerala and Others) to hold that such a challenge is not maintainable in a writ petition under Articles 226/227.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the writ petition cannot be sustained as it seeks to challenge a preliminary Labour Court award. They rely on the Chelamattom decision to argue that the proper remedy does not lie within a writ petition and that the interim suspension does not alter this position; the Division Bench precedent dictates dismissal of the petition.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Chelamattom Sree Krishna Swami Devaswom Trust v. State of Kerala and Others2022(4) KHC 215PositiveThe court relies on this Division Bench decision to hold that a preliminary Labour Court award cannot be challenged in a writ petition under Articles 226/227.
I.P.(L.C)3/18I.P.(L.C)3/18Mentioned OnlyExhibit P19 references the judgment in I.P.(L.C)3/18; not discussed for ratio in the current decision.
W.P.C. 25018/2018WPC 25018/2018Mentioned OnlyExhibit P20 references the judgment in WPC 25018/2018; no substantive discussion of its ratio in the current decision.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against O.T. Alexander v. General Secretary, Industrial Complex Labour Union (INTUC) and Labour Court, Ernakulam and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## _`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`_ ## _`PRESENT`_ ## _`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.`_ ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 27[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1946 ``` ## _`WP(C) NO. 38281 OF 2018`_ ## _`PETITIONER:`_ ``` O.T. ALEXANDER, AGED 70 YEARS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, AVENUE REGENT, M.G.ROAD, COCHIN-682 016. BY ADVS. PAULSON C.VARGHESE SMT.A.SIRJI ``` ## _`RESPONDENTS:`_ ``` 1GENERAL SECRETARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX LABOUR UNION (INTUC), MUNDAKKAL, KOLLAM-691 001. 2LABOUR COURT ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682 031. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY SRI.K.V.GEORGE SRI.P.N.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR SRI.RIYAL DEVASSY ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 38281 OF 2018 -2- ``` ## _`JUDGMENT`_ The writ petition challenges a preliminary award passed by the Labour Court, Ernakulam in I.D.No.22 of 2016 on 08.08.2018 by which the domestic enquiry conducted by the petitioner has been set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. The point raised by the petitioner is covered against him in the judgment of this Court in **Chelamattom Sree Krishna Swami Devaswom Trust v. State of Kerala and Others (2022(4) KHC 215)** , wherein a Division Bench of this Court said that the preliminary award of the Labour Court cannot be challenged in a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court by an interim order dated 26.11.2018 suspended the preliminary award. However, in the view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court **(supra)** , I am of the considered view that the writ petition is liable ``` WP(C) NO. 38281 OF 2018 -3- ``` to be dismissed and the challenge against the preliminary award is liable to be repelled. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- ``` EASWARAN S. JUDGE ``` ``` vv ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 38281 OF 2018 -4- ``` ## _`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 38281/2018`_ ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS ``` ``` EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICES DATED 2.9.2010. ``` - _`EXHIBIT P1-A TRUE COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICES DATED 28.8.2006 ISSUED TO THE DELINQUENT OFFICER.`_ - _`EXHIBIT P1-B TRUE COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICES DATED 18.6.2013.`_ - _`EXHIBIT P1-C TRUE COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICES DATED 23.2.2011.`_ - _`EXHIBIT P1-D TRUE COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICES DATED 13.12.2013.`_ - _`EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF EXHAUSTIVE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 14.1.2015 ISSUED TO THE DELINQUENT OFFICER.`_ - _`EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 16.1.15, BY E-MAIL, SUBMITTED BY THE DELINQUENT OFFICER.`_ - _`EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.1.2015 APPOINTING ENQUIRY OFFICER.`_ - _`EXHIBIT P4-A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT DATED 16.1.2015 PASSED BY THE PETITIONER MR.O.T.ALEXANDER, MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE ESTABLISHMENT APPOINTING MR. AMUTHAN RAJAN AS ENQUIRY OFFICER.`_ - _`EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 24.2.2015 ISSUED BY TE ENQIURY OFFICER.`_ ``` WP(C) NO. 38281 OF 2018 -5- ``` - _`EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 16.3.2015 INTIMATING FIRST SITTING OF THE ENQUIRY, WHICH WILL BE HELD ON 25.3.2015.`_ - _`EXHIBIT P6-A TRUE COPY OF THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION DATED 23.3.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE DELINQUENT OFFICER.`_ - _`EXHIBIT P6-B TRUE COPY OF THE ENVELOPE CONTAINING EXHIBIT P6A APPLICATION SENT BY THE DELINQUENT OFFICER.`_ - _`EXHIBIT P6-C TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY PROCEEDINGS DATED 25.3.2015 RECORDED BY THE ENQUIRY OFFICER.`_ - _`EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ENVELOPE CONTAINING EXHIBIT P-7A ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION SENT BY THE DELINQUENT OFFICER.`_ - _`EXHIBIT P7-A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 26.3.2015 ISSUED BY THE ENQUIRY OFFICER REGARDING 2ND SITTING OF THE ENQUIRY, WHICH WILL BE HELD ON 10.4.2015.`_ - _`EXHIBIT P7-B TRUE COPY OF THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION DATED 8.4.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE DELINQUENT OFFICER.`_ - _`EXHIBIT P7-C TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY PROCEEDINGS DATED 10.4.2015 RECORDED BY THE ENQUIRY OFFICER.`_ - _`EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ENVELOPE CONTAINING EXHIBIT P-8A ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION SENT BY THE DELINQUENT OFFICER.`_ - _`EXHIBIT P8-A TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY NOTICE DATED 14.4.2015 INTIMATING THE THIRD SITTING OF THE ENQUIRY, WHICH WILL BE HELD ON`_ ``` WP(C) NO. 38281 OF 2018 -6- ``` ``` 30.4.2015. ``` - _`EXHIBIT P8-B TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 28.4.2015 SEEKING ADJOURNMENT OF THE ENQUIRY SUBMITTED BY THE DELINQUENT OFFICER.`_ - _`EXHIBIT P8-C TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY PROCEEDINGS DATED 30.4.2015 RECORDED BY THE ENQUIRY OFFICER.`_ - _`EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 30.4.2015 SENT TO THE DELINQUENT OFFICER.`_ - _`EXHIBIT P9-A TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY PROCEEDINGS RECORDED BY THE ENQUIRY OFFICER DATED 7.5.2015.`_ - _`EXHIBIT P9-B TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT OF EXT.P9 NOTICE INTIMATING 4TH SITTING OF THE ENQUIRY HELD ON 7/5/15 SENT BY REG.POST.`_ - _`EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REVERSE SIDE OF ENVELOPE CONTAINING EXHIBIT P-10 NOTICE.`_ - _`EXHIBIT P10-A TRUE COPY OF THE ENVELOPE CONTAINING EXT.P-10 NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ENQUIRY OFFICER.`_ - _`EXHIBIT P10-B TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 7.5.2015 INTIMATING THAT THE ENQUIRY BEING CONTINUED IN HIS ABSENCE.`_ - _`EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF DEPOSITION OF CW 7 EXHIBIT P11-A TRUE COPY OF DEPOSITION OF CW 8 EXHIBIT P11-B TRUE COPY OF DEPOSITION OF CW 9`_ ``` WP(C) NO. 38281 OF 2018 -7- ``` - _`EXHIBIT P11-C TRUE COPY OF DEPOSITION OF CW 10 EXHIBIT P11-D TRUE COPY OF DEPOSITION OF CW 11 EXHIBIT P11-E TRUE COPY OF DEPOSITION OF CW 12 EXHIBIT P11-F TRUE COPY OF DEPOSITION OF CW 13 EXHIBIT P11-G TRUE COPY OF DEPOSITION OF CW 14 EXHIBIT P11-H TRUE COPY OF DEPOSITION OF CW 5 EXHIBIT P11-I TRUE COPY OF DEPOSITION OF CW 6`_ - _`EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT PASSED BY THE ENQUIRY OFFICER.`_ - _`EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COY OF THE CLAIM STATEMENT FILED BY THE TRUE COPY OF DEPOSITION OF CWDELINQUENT OFFICER.`_ - _`EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE MANAGEMENT.`_ - _`EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE DELINQUENT OFFICER.`_ - _`EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF MW1 ENQUIRY OFFICER.`_ - _`EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF DEPOSITION OF WW1 MR. ANTONY ABU FRANKLIN.`_ - _`EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT LABOUR COURT.`_ ``` EXHIBIT P19TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN I.P.(L.C)3/18. ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 38281 OF 2018 -8- ``` ``` EXHIBIT P20TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THISHON'BLECOURTINWPC NO.25018/2018. ```