THE GENERAL SECRETARY, N.S.S. HEAD OFFICE (WRONGLY SHOWN AS N.S.S. ENTRAL COMMITTEE IN THE CAUSE TITLE OF THE WRIT PETITION), PERUNNAI, CHANGANACHERRY, (MANAGEMENT OF NSS MEDICAL MISSION HOSPITAL, PANDALAM) Vs. THE LABOUR COURT, KOLAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The General Secretary of Nair Service Society (for short N.S.S) Central Committee, the unsuccessful petitioner, in Writ Petition(C) No. 15039 of 2008 has filed this appeal challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 28.10.2014.

(2.) The Brief facts necessary to decide the appeal are as follows: The petitioner is conducting a hospital under the name and style 'N.S.S. Medical Mission Hospital' at Pandalam. The 2nd respondent, (hereinafter referred to as the employee) was an X-ray technician of the hospital. On a complaint filed against him by an inpatient (herein after referred to as the complainant) of the hospital alleging misbehavior, towards her in the course of taking X-ray on 12.9.2003, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Superintendent of the Hospital and he reported that the allegations leveled against him are correct. Acting upon the report, he was placed under suspension. Thereafter, disciplinary proceedings were initiated and an enquiry officer was appointed to conduct an enquiry. The employee filed statement of facts refuting the allegations leveled against him. The disciplinary proceedings culminated in punishment of dismissal from service with effect from 23/09/03, the date of suspension .

(3.) Then the employee raised an industrial dispute and the Government have referred the dispute for adjudication before the 1st respondent, Labour Court. Before the Labour Court, the petitioner/management filed Ext.P10 written statement. Ext.P11 is the copy of the claim statement filed by the employee. The enquiry officer was examined as MW1 on the side of the petitioner/management and Exts.M1 and Ext.P1(a) were marked and finally Ext. P12 preliminary order was passed in favour of the employee holding that the enquiry held is vitiated. Ext.P13 is the Award delivered by which he was directed to be reinstated with back wages. Aggrieved by the Award of the Labour Court in the reference (I.D. No. 9/2006), the writ petition was filed by the petitioner. In the writ petition, the petitioner has contended that after the preliminary order was passed, the Labour Court did not give an opportunity to adduce further evidence justifying the action taken by the management against the workman. The reliefs sought for in the writ petition are as follows: