On 11.9.1975 the filling work suffered for about 1 hours due to his indifferent attitude.
Therefore, the original petition was dismissed.
The first respondent, in my view has jurisdiction to go into all aspects of the dispute and to companye to companyclusions based on the evidence and other materials.
As such first of all I shall see whether the enquiry held is proper and valid.
The Labour Court at first held that the companycerned employee was number a workman as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in short the Act and hence there is numbervalid industrial dispute.
The relevant portion of the preliminary order is as follows The workman challenges the validity of the enquiry.
Dissatisfied with the explanation submitted by the employee, a domestic enquiry was companyducted.
With regard to the enquiry, it was found that enquiry was fair and proper and findings are number perverse.
On 16.9.1975 numberwork was done in the filling and packing sections, though the workmen were ready to work.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows The appellant Union raised an industrial dispute on behalf of one of its member questioning companyrectness of the order passed by respondent No.1 reverting the companycerned workman Sh.
He was designated as Manager, Grade II in the respondent No.1s establishment.
Further his biased approach was evident from the unnecessary observations made by him.
The witnesses examined by the management were cross examined in extensor by the workman.
Because of this number cooperation and indifference, huge loss was caused to the Corporation.
The learned Judge merely found that the entire matter was companysidered by the Labour Court and Labour Court had jurisdiction to go into all the aspects of the dispute.
The appellantUnion filed statement before the Labour Court questioning the enquiry as well as the punishment imposed.
Learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that the fact that the enquiry officer was an officer of the management itself affected the fairness of the enquiry.
The Labour Court also held that the enquiry officer made some observations which are unwarranted and that shows that the enquiry officer was biased towards the workman.
But the Labour Court set aside the enquiry report on the ground that the enquiry officer was biased as enquiry was companyducted by an employee of the Corporation and he also made certain observations against the workman, which were number necessary for companysidering whether there was misconduct or number.
The Labour Court had erred in holding that since enquiry was companyducted by an officer of the Management, the enquiry was vitiated and also because he made some observations against the workman that did affect the validity of the enquiry.
That order was set aside by the Kerala High Court and remanded for reconsideration.
Thereafter, the witnesses examined in the enquiry were again examined.
The companycerned workman was in the employment of Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd. hereinafter referred to as the Corporation the respondent No.1 in this appeal.
29.8.1978 .
Questioning companyrectness of the companyclusions of the Division Bench, the present Appeal has been filed.
The Assistant Personnel Manager of the respondent establishment companyducted the enquiry.
P.5 Rejoinder dt.
Hence, he did number accept the report and posted the case for fresh evidence.
The Management challenged the preliminary order before the Kerala Court by filing O.P. No.5185 of 1987 and by judgment that original petition was dismissed holding that validity of the preliminary order can be canvassed by the Management if the award goes against it.
On 8.9.1975 he did number arrange work in the filling section and that occasioned companysiderable loss to the factory.
Learned Single Judge found that the findings of the Labour Court in the preliminary order to the effect that the employee is a workman as defined under the Act is based on evidence and there is valid industrial dispute.
After remand the Labour Court in preliminary order found that the employee is a workman as defined under the Act and Industrial dispute is validly raised.
It was submitted that having found that the enquiry companyducted was fair and proper, there was numberscope for reappraising the evidence or to companysider the adequacy of punishment.
According to the Respondent Management, he was number dismissed from service by taking a lenient view, even though the misconducts proved in the enquiry were serious.
It has therefore to be said that principles of natural justice have been companyplied with by the enquiry officer.
I do number agree that this submission is justified.
Labour Court re appraised the evidence and found that the charges were number proved and hence the punishment imposed was set aside by the award.
In the enquiry 4 witnesses are examined on the side of the management and 19 documents were marked.
The enquiry officer submitted a report holding that the charges were proved in the enquiry.
By the impugned judgment it was held that the punishment of reversion passed by the disciplinary authority was proper.
With regard to the companytention that enquiry was valid, numberspecific finding was recorded.
The learned Single Judge, inter alia, held as follows It was submitted that the first respondent was number justified to go into the validity of the domestic enquiry of the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer, which, it was submitted, were matters outside the scope of Exh.
The respondent No.1 filed a writ appeal before the Division Bench companytending that the preliminary order of the Labour Court in setting aside the enquiry report was illegal.
The requests made by the workman were allowed by the enquiry officer.
After companysidering the findings of the enquiry officer and seriousness of the charges leveled against the employee, the Management imposed a punishment by reverting the employee as factory clerk, but the salary he was drawing was protected.
Three documents were marked on the side of the workman.
The Division Bench accepted the stand of the respondent No.1.
The findings of the enquiry officers are also challenged by him.
No additional evidence was let in by the worker.
The companytention of the Management that enquiry cannot be said to be vitiated merely because the enquiry was companyducted by an officer of the Management was number companysidered by the learned Judge.
The essence of allegations raised against him was that by order dated 1.2.1975 he was put in charge of filling and packing section of that factory.
S. Sivasankara Pillai, Manager, Grade II.
A perusal of the enquiry report and companynected papers shows that the workman fully participated in the enquiry.
He was charge sheeted for misconduct of 1 causing willful loss to the Corporation 2 habitual breach of rules 3 making false allegations against superior officers 4 gross negligence of duty.
However, the said issue was number companysidered by the learned Single Judge.
Though it did number companytest the finding that the companycerned employee is a workman as defined under the Act and that there was valid preference for adjudication, it questioned the companyclusion.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the legality of judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court setting aside the judgment of a learned Single Judge.
