High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeDisposed of; writ petitions disposed of without...

W.P.(C) No.82 of 2021 & connected cases

Case / Petition Number:WP(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 High Court disposed of the writ petitions, finding no perversity in the Labour Court’s preliminary order. It declined to interfere with the Labour Court’s award, while reserving the petitioners’ right to challenge the preliminary order along with the final order, in line with the precedent in Chelamattom supra.
Final Disposition
Disposed of; writ petitions disposed of without interference with the Labour Court's preliminary order; liberty to challenge the preliminary order along with the final order.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Trivandrum Club

Respondents

  • G Chandrakumar
  • Labour Court, Kollam
  • T. Madhu
  • Vishnum
  • Raju P. Salomnivas
  • Tomy Joseph
  • S. Binu
  • Kumarimridula
  • R. Pradeep Kumar Molanan

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • P.RAMAKRISHNAN
  • • Smt.PREETHIRAMAKRISHNAN(P-212)
  • • Sri.T.C.KRISHNA
  • • Sri.C.ANILKUMAR
  • • Smt.ASHAK.SHENOY
  • • Sri.PRATAPABRAHAMVARGHESE

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri.GOPAKUMARR.THALIYAL
  • • Sri.M.S.VIJAYACHANDRAABABU
  • • Smt.MABLECKURIAN, SRGP
  • • Smt.DEEPV,GP

Case Synopsis & Summary

The judgment deals with a batch of writ petitions by the Trivandrum Club challenging a common preliminary order dated 19.11.2020 of the Labour Court, Kollam, quashing or setting aside domestic enquiry proceedings against eight workers. The Labour Court had found the proceedings defective because the enquiry officer, appointed for multiple workers, framed charges for convenience, failed to address each charge as a separate issue, and reduced the number of charges while not properly answering the framed issues. The Labour Court’s overall conclusion was that the enquiry was arbitrary and defective, and it directed the petitioner to prove the charges afresh. The Club argued that a single, common preliminary award on eight separate disputes was prejudicial and that the order was perverse and unsupported by evidence. It relied on established precedents, notably Chelamattom Sree Krishna Swami Devaswom Trust v. State of Kerala, to urge relegation to the Labour Court with liberty to challenge the preliminary order along with the final award. The respondent workers contended that the Labour Court’s approach was justified given the nature of the proceedings. In a detailed assessment, the learned Judge found no perversity in the Labour Court’s award and disposed of the writ petitions, while preserving the petitioners’ right to challenge the preliminary order along with the final order, as observed in Chelamattom supra.

Provisions of Law Cited

Travancore Cochin Literary and Scientific Charitable Societies Act, 1955

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that a common preliminary award covering eight separate disputes was erroneous and that the Labour Court failed to frame separate issues for each worker, thereby prejudicing the workers. They argued that the charge sheet was diluted by the enquiry officer and that the proceedings were pre-planned to target the workers, resulting in a defective enquiry report. They sought quashing of the preliminary order or remand to the Labour Court for a fair, individually reasoned enquiry, citing Chelamattom Sree Krishna Swami Devaswom Trust v. State of Kerala to support relegation to the Labour Court with liberty to challenge along with the final award.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that the Labour Court’s common preliminary award was just and justified, noting that the enquiry officer framed charges for convenience and that the Court’s findings were supported by the evidence. They urged that interference should be avoided unless perversity is evident and relied on established precedents validating the Labour Court’s approach.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Chelamattom Sree Krishna Swami Devaswom Trust v. State of Kerala2022 (4) KLT 90PositiveCited to support relegation of preliminary orders to Labour Court with liberty to challenge along with the final order.
St. Thomas Missions Hospital v. State of Kerala and another2007 (2) KLT 415Mentioned OnlyCited to illustrate the proposition that interference can occur if a Labour Court order is perverse; however, the present judgment finds no perversity.

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 W.P.(C) No.82 of 2021 & 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 ```