KERALA BOOKS AND PUBLICATION SOCIETY Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an employer, who is before this Court challenging the orders of the Labour Court, produced as Exhibits P3 and P6. Suffice it to say that the 2nd respondent was dismissed from service and a reference was made at the instance of the Union. The reference was numbered, I.D.No.3 of 2007, and the Labour Court took up the matter. The management adduced its evidence. Subsequently, when the workman was being examined, the management filed an application, Exhibit P1, to reopen the evidence of the management and to call for a witness on behalf of the management. The said application was dismissed by Exhibit P3 and a further application filed for re-hearing the matter was also dismissed by Exhibit P6.

(2.) To understand the dispute, a few background facts are necessary, which occurred when the matter was pending before the Labour Court. As was noticed above, the reference itself was initiated by the Union on behalf of the workman, on the latter's dismissal from service. It is admitted that, later the Union and the workman fell out and on no instructions being received from the Union, the lawyer who was representing the Union, who had raised the dispute on behalf of the workman, relinquished his Vakkalath. Consequently, as is permissible, the workman sought impleadment in the said Industrial Dispute and the same was allowed. What transpired at the stage of evidence, which gave rise to this Original Petition, has been noticed by this Court in the earlier paragraph.

(3.) It is pertinent that, the witness the management wanted to summon was the Secretary of the Union which had initiated the reference and which was a party in the dispute pending before the Labour Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Labour Court misdirected itself, since the reliance placed on two decisions of this Court, being Syed Mohammed Vs. Aziz [1990 (2) KLT 952] and Jortin Antony Vs. S.P.D.Marthanda Varma [2000 (2) KLT 680] , are not germane for consideration, since those decisions dealt with the procedure under the Code of Civil Procedure ( "CPC " for short). The procedure as prescribed under the Code of Civil Procedure has limited application with respect to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity "I.D.Act ") and, hence, the contention is that the Labour Court misdirected itself. The learned counsel also takes me through paragraphs 13 and 15 of Jortin Antony (supra) to contend that the Court has the discretion to call for any witness and the approach of the Court should always be to further justice and not shut out any reliable evidence on any aspect.