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

Trivandrum Club v. Labour Court Kollam & Ors

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
Writ petitions disposed of; not interfering with the Labour Court’s preliminary order; reserving the petitioner’s right to challenge the preliminary order along with the final order as observed in Chelamattom; final Labour Court order stands.
Final Disposition
Writ petitions disposed of; no interference with Labour Court’s order; right to challenge preliminary order along with final order reserved.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Trivandrum Club

Respondents

  • G. Chandrakumar
  • Labour Court, Kollam
  • Deepav, GP

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, SRGP
  • • Smt. Deepav, GP

Case Synopsis & Summary

The set of writ petitions filed by Trivandrum Club challenged a common Labour Court order dated 19.11.2020 quashing the domestic enquiries conducted against several workmen employed by the club. The Labour Court held that the enquiry officer did not frame issues separately for each of the 12 charges and that the enquiry process was conducted in a prejudicial, hasty and defective manner, thereby vitiating the proceedings. The petitions were heard together (W.P.(C) Nos. 82/2021, 155/2021, 509/2021, 496/2021, 497/2021, 489/2021, 285/2021, 318/2021) and the court examined whether to interfere with the Labour Court’s preliminary order. The judge cited Chelamattom Sree Krishna Swami Devaswom Trust v. State of Kerala (2022 (4) KLT 90) to note that challenging preliminary orders should ordinarily be relegated to the Labour Court to avoid delay, and referred to St. Thomas Missions Hospital v. State of Kerala (2007 (2) KLT 415) in argument about interference for perversity. Ultimately, the High Court held that the Labour Court’s award did not suffer perversity, declined to interfere with the preliminary order, and disposed of the writ petitions, reserving the petitioner’s right to challenge the preliminary order along with the final order as observed in Chelamattom.

Provisions of Law Cited

Travancore Cochin Literary and Scientific Charitable Societies Act, 1955

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Doctrines governing interference in Labour Court proceedings: not to interfere with a properly conducted Labour Court order unless perversity is evident; liberty to challenge preliminary order along with final order (as observed in Chelamattom)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants contended that the Labour Court erred in passing a common preliminary award for eight separate disputes and that the enquiry officer had bundled 12 charges into general findings, omitting to answer each issue separately. They argued the charges were framed for convenience but must be adjudicated on their own terms with appropriate evidence and specific findings. They urged remand or setting aside of the Labour Court order, asserting procedural defects and denial of fair opportunity to the workers.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that the Labour Court’s approach was sustainable, that the enquiry process may frame charges for convenience, and that the evidence on record supports the outcome. They argued against interference with a discretionary Labour Court order where no substantial perversity is shown, and relied on principles from established decisions to avoid delays and maintain judicial economy.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Chelamattom Sree Krishna Swami Devaswom Trust v. State of Kerala2022 (4) KLT 90Mentioned OnlyCited for background principle that preliminary orders should normally be relegated to the Labour Court to avoid delay; the current judgment, however, disposes the petitions while preserving the right to challenge preliminaries with final order.
St. Thomas Missions Hospital v. State of Kerala and another2007 (2) KLT 415DistinguishedCited in argument as a precedent that perverse orders may invite interference; the present judgment finds no perversity in the Labour Court award and hence does not apply that principle to permit interference.

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 & Ors 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 ```