V.K. EMMANUAL Vs. LABOUR COURT AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in both these original petitions is with regard to one and the same award passed by the Labour Court, Ernakulam, in I.D. No. 108 of 1992. The former original petition is filed by the workman, whereas the latter is by the management. The petitioner was appointed as the assistant security officer in the Transformers and Electricals Kerala Ltd., on contract basis for a period of five years from Aug. 3, 1982 to Aug. 2, 1987. For alleged misconduct, disciplinary action was initiated against the aforesaid workman (hereinafter referred to as "the petitioner") and ultimately he was removed from service with effect from Jan. 2, 1986.

(2.) The case has had a chequered career. The aforesaid removal order was challenged before this court by the petitioner in O.P. No. 2380 of 1996 which was dismissed. The petitioner moved the Government for reference of the dispute to the Labour Court and it was allowed. An award was passed on March 31, 1997, which is marked as exhibit P-18 in O.P. No. 26623 of 1999. It was found that the order of removal from service of the workman was unjustified though he was guilty of the charge alleged against him. The Labour Court modified the punishment as two months' suspension and withholding of half of the back-wages. He was directed to be reinstated with continuity of service. Both sides challenged the said order. Ultimately, O.P. No. 20765 of 1997 filed by the management was allowed. The other original petition was dismissed.

(3.) Both sides took up the matter by way of W.A. Nos. 1575 and 1864 of 1998 before this court. These were considered together. The judgment of the learned single judge was set aside and the case was remitted to the Labour Court to consider the question as to which appropriate relief can be granted to the workman. Taking into account the fact that the petitioner was a workman on contract basis for a limited period, it was directed that the Labour Court should consider whether the petitioner could continue beyond the contractual period. The petitioner took up the matter before the apex court by way of S.L.P, Nos. 2339 and 2340 of 1999. In the meantime, the Labour Court, in the absence of any stay order, had started steps for fresh decision pursuant to the directions of the Division Bench. When the matter was ultimately heard by the apex court it was revealed that the Labour Court has disposed of the matter vide judgment dated April 13, 1999. It was noticing this development that the apex court pronounced the order dated Aug. 25, 1999, upholding the remand ordered by the Division Bench and making it clear that both sides would be at liberty to raise all legally permissible contentions when it reaches the High Court for consideration. Hearing of the present original petitions has therefore to be in accordance with the said directions.