High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petitions disposed of; no interference wit...

Trivandrum Club v Labour Court Kollam and connected cases

Case / Petition Number:W.P.(C) Nos. 82/2021, 155/2021, 509/2021, 496/2021, 497/2021, 489/2021, 285/2021 & 318/2021

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Judgment Date
2023-03-14
Court Decision / Holding
The writ petitions are disposed of; the High Court did not interfere with the Labour Court's order quashing the domestic enquiry; the petitioner retains the right to challenge the preliminary order along with the final order; the Labour Court’s order stands and the main proceedings will continue before the Labour Court.
Final Disposition
Writ petitions disposed of; no interference with Labour Court’s order; liberty to challenge preliminary order along with final order.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Trivandrum Club, Vazhutacau d, Thiruvananthapuram, PIN-695010, represented by Honorary Secretary D. Santhosh Kumar

Respondents

  • G. Chandrakumar
  • Labour Court, Kollam
  • Vishnum
  • T. Madhu
  • S. Binu
  • Rajup. Salomnivas
  • R. Pradekumaran Molananan
  • Tomy Joseph
  • Kumarimridula
  • R. Pradeepkumar Molananan

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • P. Ramakrishnan
  • • Smt. Preethiramakrishnan (P-212)
  • • Sri T. C. Krishna
  • • Sri C. Anil Kumar
  • • Smt. Ashak Shenoy
  • • Sri Pratap Abraham Varghese

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri Gopakumar R. Thaliyal
  • • Sri M. S. Vijayachandra Ababu
  • • Smt. Mableckurian
  • • Smt. Deepav

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court judgment delivering on WP(C) Nos. 82/2021 and connected petitions, all challenging a common Labour Court order dated 19.11.2020 that quashed a domestic enquiry conducted against several Trivandrum Club employees. The petitioner is the Trivandrum Club, a society registered under the Travancore Cochin Literary and Scientific Charitable Societies Act, 1955, represented by its Honorary Secretary. The Labour Court held that the enquiry officer’s proceedings were defective, failing to address each charge separately and temporarily consolidating charges, which it found to be prejudicial to the workers and arbitrary. The High Court judge, Raja Vijayaraghavan V, observed that the Chelamattom Sree Krishna Swami Devaswom Trust v. State of Kerala (2022 (4) KLT 90) had lamented entertain­ing writ petitions challenging preliminary Labour Court orders and urged relegation to the Labour Court for culmination with the final award, while noting St. Thomas Missions Hospital v. State of Kerala (2007 (2) KLT 415) as a cited authority. Ultimately, the High Court declined to interfere with the Labour Court’s order, disposed of the writ petitions, and reserved the petitioner’s right to challenge the preliminary order along with the final order.

Provisions of Law Cited

Travancore Cochin Literary and Scientific Charitable Societies Act, 1955

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Relegation of challenges to preliminary Labour Court orders to the Labour Court for culmination with the final award (Chelamattom Sree Krishna Swami Devaswom Trust v. State of Kerala, 2022 (4) KLT 90)
  • Interference in case of perverse orders (St. Thomas Missions Hospital v. State of Kerala, 2007 (2) KLT 415) — mentioned as authority relied upon by parties but not adopted by the present Court

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that the Labour Court committed an egregious error by issuing a common preliminary award for eight separate disputes. The enquiry officer framed charges for convenience, reduced the number of charges, and did not address each framed issue separately, resulting in a perceived failure of justice. Relying on Chelamattom Sree Krishna Swami Devaswom Trust v. State of Kerala (2022 (4) KLT 90), they urge relegation of preliminary orders to the Labour Court for culmination with the final award and argue that interference is warranted only if an order is perverse, citing St. Thomas Missions Hospital v. State of Kerala (2007 (2) KLT 415) to illustrate the principle. They seek setting aside of the Labour Court’s preliminary order or remand for proper, issue-specific findings. The core plea is to avoid delay and ensure a properly reasoned, charge-specific adjudication that preserves workers’ rights and due process.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the Labour Court’s common preliminary award, though not perfect, was within its remit to consolidate and address issues, and that the enquiries were not perverse. They argue the Labour Court had legitimate reasons to treat the 12 charges as a coherent set of issues for purposes of convenience, and that the record demonstrates substantial evidence supporting the conclusions. They maintain that the preliminary order should stand and that the main inquiry should continue in accordance with due process, with final adjudication on the merits to follow. The respondents rely on long-standing procedural norms and the Labour Court’s evaluation of evidence to justify the quashing of the enquiry as lacking, while urging the Court not to derail the ongoing disciplinary process.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Chelamattom Sree Krishna Swami Devaswom Trust v. State of Kerala2022 (4) KLT 90PositiveCited to support relegation of challenges to preliminary Labour Court orders to be resolved with the final award, avoiding delay.
St. Thomas Missions Hospital v. State of Kerala and another2007 (2) KLT 415Mentioned OnlyCited by petitioners to argue for interference if an order is perverse; court ultimately does not rely on this proposition.

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 Trivandrum Club v Labour Court Kollam and connected cases and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

W.P.(C) No.82 of 2021 & connected cases 1 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V TUESDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1944`** ## **`WP(C) NO. 82 OF 2021`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` TRIVANDRUMCLUB, VAZHUTHACAUD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN695010 REPRESENTEDBYITSHONOURARYSECRETARYTOSANTHOSH KUMAR BYADVS. P.RAMAKRISHNAN SMT.PREETHIRAMAKRISHNAN(P-212) SRI.T.C.KRISHNA SRI.C.ANILKUMAR SMT.ASHAK.SHENOY SRI.PRATAPABRAHAMVARGHESE ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1G.CHANDRAKUMAR, POOVANVILAKATHUMADAM,INDUSTRIALESTATEP.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695019 2LABOURCOURT, KOLLAM,PIN691013 BYADVS. SRI.GOPAKUMARR.THALIYAL SRI.M.S.VIJAYACHANDRAABABU ``` ``` SMTDEEPAV,GP ``` ``` THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSION ON14.03.2023,ALONGWITHWP(C).155/2021ANDCONNECTEDCASES, THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C) No.82 of 2021 & connected cases 2 ``` INTHEHIGHCOURTOFKERALAATERNAKULAM PRESENT THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICERAJAVIJAYARAGHAVANV TUESDAY,THE14[TH]DAYOFMARCH2023/23RDPHALGUNA,1944 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 155 OF 2021`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` TRIVANDRUMCLUB VAZHUTHACAUD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695010, REPRESENTEDBYITSHONORARYSECRETARYD.SANTHOSH KUMAR. ``` ``` BYADVS. P.RAMAKRISHNAN SMT.PREETHIRAMAKRISHNAN(P-212) SRI.C.ANILKUMAR SMT.ASHAK.SHENOY SRI.PRATAPABRAHAMVARGHESE ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1T.MADHU, TC8/1796,LEKSHMINAGAR,TIRUMALAPO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695006. 2LABOURCOURT, KOLLAM,PIN-691013. ``` ``` BYADVS. SRI.GOPAKUMARR.THALIYAL SRI.M.S.VIJAYACHANDRAABABU SMT.MABLECKURIAN,SRGP ``` ``` THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSION ON14.03.2023,ALONGWITHWP(C).82/2021ANDCONNECTEDCASES, THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C) No.82 of 2021 & connected cases 3 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V TUESDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1944`** ## **`WP(C) NO. 509 OF 2021`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` TRIVANDRUMCLUB,VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695010,REPRESENTEDBYITS HONORARYSECRETARYD.SANTHOSHKUMAR. ``` ``` BYADVS. P.RAMAKRISHNAN SMT.PREETHIRAMAKRISHNAN(P-212) SRI.T.C.KRISHNA SRI.C.ANILKUMAR SMT.ASHAK.SHENOY SRI.PRATAPABRAHAMVARGHESE ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1VISHNUM, KAVUVILAKEEZHEVEEDU,OOKODU,NEMOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695020 2LABOURCOURT, KOLLAM,PIN-691013 BYADVS. SRI.GOPAKUMARR.THALIYAL SRI.M.S.VIJAYACHANDRAABABU ``` ``` SMT.MABLECKURIAN,SRGP ``` ``` THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSION ON14.03.2023,ALONGWITHWP(C).82/2021ANDCONNECTEDCASES, THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C) No.82 of 2021 & connected cases 4 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V TUESDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1944`** ## **`WP(C) NO. 496 OF 2021`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` TRIVANDRUMCLUB - VAZHUTHACAUD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN695010, REPRESENTEDBYITSHONORARYSECRETARYD.SANTHOSH KUMAR. ``` ``` BYADVS. P.RAMAKRISHNAN SMT.PREETHIRAMAKRISHNAN(P-212) SRI.T.C.KRISHNA SRI.C.ANILKUMAR SMT.ASHAK.SHENOY SRI.PRATAPABRAHAMVARGHESE ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1RAJUP. SALOMNIVAS,ARA40,KUNNAPPUZHA,ARAMADAP.O., - THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695032. 2LABOURCOURT - KOLLAM,PIN691013. BYADVS. SRI.GOPAKUMARR.THALIYAL SRI.M.S.VIJAYACHANDRAABABU SMT.DEEPAV,GP ``` ``` THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSION ON14.03.2023,ALONGWITHWP(C).82/2021ANDCONNECTEDCASES, THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C) No.82 of 2021 & connected cases 5 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V TUESDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1944`** ## **`WP(C) NO. 497 OF 2021`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` TRIVANDRUMCLUB VAZHUTHACAUD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN695010, REP.BYITSHONORARYSECRETARYD.SANTHOSHKUMAR ``` ``` BYADVS. P.RAMAKRISHNAN SMT.PREETHIRAMAKRISHNAN(P-212) SRI.T.C.KRISHNA SRI.C.ANILKUMAR SMT.ASHAK.SHENOY SRI.PRATAPABRAHAMVARGHESE ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1TOMYJOSEPH KANAKANIVAS,TC17/561,PRA180,CHADIYARA, POOJAPPURAPO,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695012 2LABOURCOURT KOLLAM,PIN691013 BYADVS. SRI.GOPAKUMARR.THALIYAL SRI.M.S.VIJAYACHANDRAABABU SMT.MABLECKURIAN,SRGP ``` ``` THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSION ON14.03.2023,ALONGWITHWP(C).82/2021ANDCONNECTEDCASES, THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C) No.82 of 2021 & connected cases 6 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V TUESDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1944`** ``` WP(C)NO.489OF2021 ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` TRIVANDRUMCLUB VAZHUCAUD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695010. REPRESENTEDBYITSHONORARYSECRETARYDSANTHOSH KUMAR. BYADVS. P.RAMAKRISHNAN SRI.T.C.KRISHNA SRI.C.ANILKUMAR SMT.ASHAK.SHENOY SRI.PRATAPABRAHAMVARGHESE SMT.PREETHIRAMAKRISHNAN(P-212) ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1S.BINU BSBHAVAN,THENNOOR,VELAYANI,NEMOMPO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695020. 2LABOURCOURT KOLLAM,PIN-691013. ``` ``` BYADVS. SRI.GOPAKUMARR.THALIYAL SRI.M.S.VIJAYACHANDRAABABU SMT.MABLECKURIAN,SRGP ``` ``` THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSION ON14.03.2023,ALONGWITHWP(C).82/2021ANDCONNECTEDCASES, THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C) No.82 of 2021 & connected cases 7 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V TUESDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1944`** ## **`WP(C) NO. 285 OF 2021`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` TRIVANDRUMCLUB VAZHUTHACAUD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN695010, REP.BYITSHONORARYSECRETARYD.SANTHOSHKUMAR ``` ``` BYADVS. P.RAMAKRISHNAN SMT.PREETHIRAMAKRISHNAN(P-212) SRI.T.C.KRISHNA SRI.C.ANILKUMAR SMT.ASHAK.SHENOY SRI.PRATAPABRAHAMVARGHESE ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1KUMARIMRIDULA - THEKKEVILAVEEDU,TC17/386,CHADIYARA, POOJAPPURAPO,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695012 2LABOURCOURT KOLLAM,PIN691013 BYADVS. SRI.GOPAKUMARR.THALIYAL SRI.M.S.VIJAYACHANDRAABABU SMT.MABLECKURIAN,SRGP ``` ``` THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSION ON14.03.2023,ALONGWITHWP(C).82/2021ANDCONNECTEDCASES, THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C) No.82 of 2021 & connected cases 8 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V TUESDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1944`** ``` WP(C)NO.318OF2021 ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` TRIVANDRUMCLUB VAZHUTHACAUD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695010, REPRESENTEDBYITSHONORARYSECRETARYDSANTHODH KUMAR. BYADVS. P.RAMAKRISHNAN SMT.PREETHIRAMAKRISHNAN(P-212) SRI.T.C.KRISHNA SRI.C.ANILKUMAR SMT.ASHAK.SHENOY SRI.PRATAPABRAHAMVARGHESE ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1R.PRADEEPKUMAR MOLANAN,TC6/1256,MARUTHAMKUZHI, KANJIRAMPARAPO,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695030. 2LABOURCOURT KOLLAM,PIN-691013. BYADVS. SRI.GOPAKUMARR.THALIYAL SRI.M.S.VIJAYACHANDRAABABU SMT.DEEPAV,GP ``` ``` THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSION ON14.03.2023,ALONGWITHWP(C).82/2021ANDCONNECTEDCASES, THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C) No.82 of 2021 & connected cases 9 ## **JUDGMENT** [WP(C) Nos.82/2021, 155/2021, 509/2021, 496/2021, 497/2021, 489/2021, 285/2021 & 318/2021] The petitioner herein is a society registered under the Travancore Cochin Literary and Scientific Charitable Societies Act, 1955. All these writ petitions have been preferred challenging the common order dated 19.11.2020 passed by the Labour Court, Kollam, by which the Labour Court, after holding that the domestic enquiry conducted against the workmen was defective, perverse and without evidence, quashed the enquiry proceedings. 2. The records reveal that the workers were all employed in the Trivandrum Club, the petitioner herein. Separate memos were issued raising various misconducts against the workers. The workmen responded to the show cause notices and being dissatisfied with the explanation offered, a domestic enquiry was ordered to be conducted by the very same enquiry officer. The enquiry officer submitted a report finding the workmen guilty of misconduct. The workmen raised separate disputes challenging the report of the enquiry officer before the Labour Court. W.P.(C) No.82 of 2021 & connected cases 10 3. The Labour Court after considering the facts and circumstances came to the conclusion that the enquiry officer, instead of conducting enquiry into the 12 charges levelled against the workmen and without arriving at a finding separately, failed to answer each issue framed by him separately. It was held that the 12 charges were converted into issues to the prejudice of the workers and the enquiry was found to be pre-planned for targeting the workers. It was also held that the available evidence was not sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that workers were guilty of the charges levelled. After considering the entire matters and the irregular manner in which the enquiry was conducted and the charges answered, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the enquiry was arbitrary and defective. After setting aside the enquiry report, the management was granted an opportunity to prove the charges against the workers. 4. The above order is under challenge. 5. I have heard Sri. P.Ramakrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the workers. 6. I find that the Division Bench of this Court in **Chelamattom Sree Krishna Swami Devaswom Trust v. State of Kerala[1]** had > 1 [2022 (4) KLT 90] W.P.(C) No.82 of 2021 & connected cases 11 lamented that the writ petitions challenging the preliminary orders passed by the Labour Court continued to be entertained by this Court leading to avoidable procrastination of the main proceedings before the Court/Tribunal. It was observed that parties who challenge the preliminary orders ought to be relegated to the Labour Court for the culmination of proceedings before that Court with the liberty to challenge the preliminary order if required along with the final award. 7. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the Labour Court has committed an egregious error in passing a common preliminary award on 8 separate disputes. It is also contended that the Labour Court ought not have considered all the matters together and ought to have refrained from making general observations as regards the vagueness of charges. Reliance is also placed on the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in **St. Thomas Missions Hospital v. State of Kerala and another** [2007 (2) KLT 415] and it is argued that if the order passed by the Labour Court is so perverse, interference can be made. 8. I find that the management had appointed a common enquiry officer to conduct an enquiry into the charges of 8 individual workers. The Labour Court has concluded that though it is the privilege of the enquiry W.P.(C) No.82 of 2021 & connected cases 12 officer to frame charges for the sake of convenience, it would not be proper for him to deviate from the charges already framed in the charge sheet. It was also found that the enquiry officer has reduced the number of charges for the sake of convenience. He omitted to answer each issue that was framed by him separately and the same has resulted in failure of justice. It was in the said circumstances that the Labour Court had concluded that the findings of the enquiry officer were perverse and without proper appreciation of evidence. 9. Having considered the order passed by the Labour Court, I am of the considered opinion that the award does not suffer from any perversity or that it has led to an evident failure of justice. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the preliminary order passed by the Labour Court, which is impugned in this writ petition. Reserving the right of the petitioner to challenge the preliminary order along with the final order as observed in **Chelamattom** (supra), this writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE** IAP W.P.(C) No.82 of 2021 & connected cases 13 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 155/2021`** ``` PETITIONER(S)EXHIBITS ``` ``` EXHIBITP1 ``` ``` TRUECOPYOFCHARGEMEMODATED 12.12.2016SERVEDONTHE1STRESPONDENT. ``` ``` EXHIBITP2TRUECOPYOFREPLYDATED15.12.2016 SUBMITTEDBYTHE1STRESPONDENT. ``` ``` EXHIBITP3TRUECOPYOFENQUIRYREPORTDATED 11.2.2017SUBMITTEDBYTHEENQUIRY OFFICERANDTHEENQUIRYPROCEEDINGS ATTACHEDTHERETO. ``` ``` EXHIBITP4TRUECOPYOFAPPLICATIONDATED18.5.2017 SUBMITTEDBYTHE1STRESPONDENTBEFORE THE2NDRESPONDENTASIDNO.35OF2017. ``` ``` EXHIBITP5TRUECOPYOFCOMMONAWARDDATED 19.11.2020INIDNO.35/2017AND CONNECTEDDISPUTESPASSEDBYTHE2ND RESPONDENT. ``` W.P.(C) No.82 of 2021 & connected cases 14 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 509/2021`** ``` PETITIONER(S)EXHIBITS ``` ``` EXHIBITP1TRUECOPYOFCHARGEMEMODATED 12.12.2016SERVEDONTHE1STRESPONDENT. EXHIBITP2TRUECOPYOFREPLYDATED13.12.2016 SUBMITTEDBYTHE1STRESPONDENT. EXHIBITP3TRUECOPYOFENQUIRYREPORTDATED 11.2.2017SUBMITTEDBYTHEENQUIRY OFFICERANDTHEENQUIRYPROCEEDINGS ATTACHEDTHERETO. ``` ``` EXHIBITP4TRUECOPYOFTHEAPPLICATIONDATED 22.5.2017SUBMITTEDBYTHE1ST RESPONDENTBEFORETHE2NDRESPONDENTAS IDNO.42OF2017. ``` ``` EXHIBITP5TRUECOPYOFCOMMONAWARDDATED 19.11.2020INIDNO.42/2017AND CONNECTEDDISPUTESPASSEDBYTHE2ND RESPONDENT. ``` W.P.(C) No.82 of 2021 & connected cases 15 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 496/2021`** ``` PETITIONER(S)EXHIBITS ``` ``` EXHIBITP1TRUECOPYOFCHARGEMEMODATED 12.12.2016SERVEDONTHE1STRESPONDENT. EXHIBITP2TRUECOPYOFREPLYDATEDNILSUBMITTED BYTHE1STRESPONDENT. EXHIBITP3TRUECOPYOFENQUIRYREPORTDATED 11.02.2017SUBMITTEDBYTHEENQUIRY OFFICERANDTHEENQUIRYPROCEEDINGS ATTACHEDTHERETO. EXHIBITP4TRUECOPYOFAPPLICATIONDATED 22.05.2017SUBMITTEDBYTHE1ST RESPONDENTBEFORETHE2NDRESPONDENTAS IDNO.43OF2017. ``` ``` EXHIBITP5TRUECOPYOFCOMMONAWARDDATED 19.11.2020INIDNO.43/2017AND CONNECTEDDISPUTESPASSEDBYTHE2ND RESPONDENT. ``` W.P.(C) No.82 of 2021 & connected cases 16 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 497/2021`** ``` PETITIONER(S)EXHIBITS ``` ``` EXHIBITP1 ``` ``` TRUECOPYOFCHARGEMEMODATED 12/12/2016SERVEDONTHE1STRESPONDENT ``` ``` EXHIBITP2TRUECOPYOFREPLYDATED15/12/2016 SUBMITTEDBYTHE1STRESPONDENT EXHIBITP3TRUECOPYOFTHEENQUIRYREPORT ``` ``` TRUECOPYOFTHEENQUIRYREPORTDATED 11/2/2017SUBMITTEDBYTHEENQUIRY OFFICERANDTHEENQUIRYPROCEEDINGS ATTACHEDTHERETO ``` ``` EXHIBITP4TRUECOPYOFAPPLICATIONDATED9/5/2017 SUBMITTEDBYTHE1STRESPONDENTBEFORE THE2NDRESPONDENTASIDNO.38OF2017 ``` ``` EXHIBITP5TRUECOPYOFCOMMONAWARDDATED 19.11.2020INIDNO.38/2017AND CONNECTEDDISPUTESPASSEDBYTHE2ND RESPONDENT ``` W.P.(C) No.82 of 2021 & connected cases 17 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 489/2021`** ``` PETITIONER(S)EXHIBITS ``` ``` EXHIBITP1TRUECOPYOFCHARGEMEMODATED 12/12/2016SERVEDONTHE1STRESPONDENT. EXHIBITP2TRUECOPYOFREPLYDATED13/12/2016 SUBMITTEDBYTHE1STRESPONDENT. EXHIBITP3TRUECOPYOFENQUIRYREPORTDATED 11/02/2017SUBMITTEDBYTHEENQUIRY OFFICERANDTHEENQUIRYPROCEEDINGS ATTACHEDTHERETO. EXHIBITP4TRUECOPYOFAPPLICATIONDATED 22/05/2017SUBMITTEDBYTHE1ST RESPONDENTBEFORETHE2NDRESPONDENTAS IDNO.41OF2017. EXHIBITP5TRUECOPYOFCOMMONAWARDDATED 19/11/2020INIDNO.41/2017AND CONNECTEDDISPUTESPASSEDBYTHE2ND RESPONDENT. ``` W.P.(C) No.82 of 2021 & connected cases 18 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 285/2021`** ``` PETITIONER(S)EXHIBITS ``` ``` EXHIBITP1TRUECOPYOFTHECHARGEMEMODATED 12.12.2016SERVEDONTHE1STRESPONDENT EXHIBITP2TRUECOPYOFREPLYDATED12.12.2016 SUBMITTEDBYTHE1STRESPONDENT EXHIBITP3TRUECOPYOFENQUIRYREPORTDATED 11/2/2017SUBMITTEDBYTHEENQUIRY OFFICERANDTHEENQUIRYPROCEEDINGS ATTACHEDTHERETO ``` ``` EXHIBITP4TRUECOPYOFAPPLICATIONDATED 12-05-2017SUBMITTEDBYTHE1ST RESPONDENTBEFORETHE2NDRESPONDENTAS IDNO.36OF2017. ``` ``` EXHIBITP5THECOPYOFTHECOMMONAWARDDATED 19-11-2020INIDNo.36/2017AND CONNECTEDDISPUTESPASSEDBYTHE2ND RESPONDENT. ``` W.P.(C) No.82 of 2021 & connected cases 19 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 318/2021`** ``` PETITIONER(S)EXHIBITS ``` ``` EXHIBITP1 ``` ``` EXHIBITP1TRUECOPYOFCHARGEMEMODATED 12/12/2016SERVEDONTHE1STRESPONDENT. EXHIBITP2TRUECOPYOFREPLYDATEDNILSUBMITTED BYTHE1STRESPONDENT, ``` ``` EXHIBITP3TRUECOPYOFENQUIRYREPORTDATED 11/2/2017SUBMITTEDBYTHEENQUIRY OFFICEANDTHEENQIRYPROCEEDINGS ATTACHEDTHERETO. EXHIBITP4TRUECOPYOFAPPLICATIONDATED9/5/2017 SUBMITTEDBYTHE1STRESPONDENTBEFORE THE2NDRESPONDENTASIDNO.37OF2017. ``` ``` EXHIBITP5TRUECOPYOFCOMMONAWARDDATED 19/11/2020INIDNO.34/2017AND CONNECTEDDISPUTESPASSEDBYTHE2ND RESPONDENT. ``` W.P.(C) No.82 of 2021 & connected cases 20 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 82/2021`** ``` PETITIONER(S)EXHIBITS ``` ``` EXHIBITP1TRUECOPYOFCHARGEMEMODATED 12-12-2016SERVEDONTHE1STRESPONDENT EXHIBITP2TRUECOPYOFREPLYDATED15-12-2016 SUBMITTEDBYTHE1STRESPONDENT EXHIBITP3TRUECOPYOFENQUIRYREPORTDATED 11-2-2017SUBMITTEDBYTHEENQUIRY OFFICERANDTHEENQUIRYPROCEEDINGS ATTACHEDTHERETO ``` ``` EXHIBITP4TRUECOPYOFAPPLICATIONDATED 19-05-2017SUBMITTEDBYTHE1ST RESPONDENTBEFORETHE2NDRESPONDENTAS IDNO.37OF2017 EXHIBITP5TRUECOPYOFCOMMONAWARDDATED 19-11-2020INIDNO.38/2017AND CONNECTEDDISPUTESPASSEDBYTHE2ND RESPONDENT ```