RAGAVA KURUP Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The termination of the petitioner's employment as a clerk in the service of the third respondent, the manager of an estate, gave rise to an industrial dispute, which was referred by Government to the Labour Court. That Court reached two conclusions, first, that the clerk was "extremely inefficient and negligent and it was hazardous to retain him as clerk in charge of the accounts" and second, that by virtue of clause 12 of the Standing Orders, the management had the right to terminate the employment on giving thirty days' notice or one month's pay in lieu of notice. In support of the second conclusion, the Labour Court relied on the decision of Balakrishna Ayyar J. reported in (1958) 2 LLJ; but this was reversed by a division bench of the Madras High Court in Working Journalists of Tamil Nadu v. "Tamil Nadu" ( (1959) 2 LLJ 84). It is unnecessary to pursue this, because on the first conclusion reached by the Labour Court, this petition has to fail.

(2.) The scope of the enquiry by the Labour Court, in a case of this kind has been delineated thus by the Supreme Court in Assam Oil Company, Ltd. v. Its Workmen ( (1960) 1 LLJ 587 at 590):

(3.) The learned counsel also contended, that the petitioner's evidence was not taken by the Labour Court. It is true, that the petitioner filed a list for examining three witnesses, but only one of them was examined. There is nothing on record to show, that his evidence was shut out; the allegation to that effect made in the affidavit in support of the petition, has been denied in the counter affidavit.