A. MUHAMMED KANNU Vs. THE LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ext. P6 order passed by the Labour Court, Kollam, by which the petitioner's claim for reinstatement was disallowed for the reason that his claim is stale, is under challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner was an employee of the 2nd respondent society from 1963 onwards. In December 1977, he was suspended from service on charges of misappropriation of funds etc. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, which culminated in his dismissal from service in 1981. The respondent society filed an arbitration case for recovery of amounts alleged to have been misappropriated by the petitioner. However, the same was dismissed on merits. Though the respondent society filed an appeal against the said decision, it was without success. Thereafter, a criminal case was filed by the respondent society against the petitioner, which also was dismissed for lack of evidence. Thereafter, the petitioner moved the labour authorities for reinstatement in service in the light of the above. Ultimately, the matter reached before the Labour Court, Kollam. The petitioner alleges that though the 1st respondent, by Ext. P5 preliminary order in ID No. 110/96, declared that the enquiry proceedings were illegal, by Ext. P6 impugned order, it was held that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief for the reason that his claim is stale and belated. The petitioner further points out that it is clear from Exts. P3, P4 and P6 documents that the petitioner has been pursuing the issue right from 1981 onwards and there is neither any negligence nor any delay on the part of the petitioner in proceeding with the matter. It is with this background, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

(3.) In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent society, it was contended as follows: