In these writ petitions, the management as well as the workman challenges the order passed by the Labour Court, Kozhikode and the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam.
2. W.P.(C).No.24684/2005 is filed by the workman challenging the order of the Labour Court, Kozhikode dismissing his application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming subsistence allowance. The above application was filed claiming subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. W.P.(C).No.11750/2009 is filed by the management challenging the Award of the Industrial Tribunbal, Ernakulam interfering with the punishment imposed on the workman.
3. The brief facts involved in both the cases are as follows: The workman was suspended with effect from 4.3.1994 pending enquiry. Later, he was dismissed from service with effect W.P.(C).Nos.24684/2005 & 11750/2009 -:2:- from 27.6.1996. The workman approached the Labour Court, Kozhikode under Section 33C(2) for computation of subsistence allowance. That application was rejected by the impugned order produced in W.P.(C).No.24684/2005. Ext.P4 is the said order in C.P. (C).No.5/1998. The operative portion reads as follows:
"7. It could be seen from the proceedings of enquiry that the enquiry was delayed mainly on account of non co- operation and recalcitrant conduct of the applicant. The proceedings would further show that the applicant was even trying to disrupt the enquiry in someway or other and left with no other alternatives, the Enquiry Officer was even constrained to conduct further proceedings in the absence of the applicant. It was contended on behalf of the worker that even after the submission of the enquiry report it took nearly one year to impose the punishment and at any rate this delay on the side of the respondent was totally unjustified."
4. It is to be noted that under the Bi-party settlement an employee is eligible for full pay and allowances after one year, if enquiry is not delayed for the reasons not attributable to the concerned employee. It is in this context the above finding has to be understood. The workman challenges this order in W.P.(C). W.P.(C).Nos.24684/2005 & 11750/2009 -:3:- No.24684/2005 stating that the Labour Court erred in finding so and there was no occasion for the workman to contradict the proceedings.
5. The management challenges the award of the Industrial Tribunal interfering with the punishment imposed on the workman. In the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal it was found that the management did not follow the principles of natural justice in conducting the enquiry. It was also found in the written statement filed by the management that the management did not raise a plea to adduce evidence to prove the charges. It appears that there were 10 charges against the workman. The labour court found that since enquiry is found vitiated and there was no evidence at all to prove the charges, the dismissal of the workman is liable to be interfered. It was accordingly ordered that the workman be reinstated with back wages.
6. Apparently, two contradictory and conflicting orders have been passed in this matter. In the order passed on the application for subsistence allowance, the labour court in categorical terms found that the workman obstructed conduct of the proceedings and he is W.P.(C).Nos.24684/2005 & 11750/2009 -:4:- not entitled for subsistence allowance. On the other hand, in the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam, it was found that the management did not follow the principles of natural Justice. Essentially, both findings are findings on fact. This court under Article 226 of the Constitution need not reappraise the findings on fact. However, to render justice, this court is of the view that the matter has to be tried at one place. Accordingly, the impugned order and award are set aside. Both the cases shall be tried by the Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam. The parties are directed to appear before the Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam on 17/5/2017. The Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam shall dispose of the matter within a further period of four months. The Labour Court, Kozhikode is directed to transmit the entire records in C.P.(C).No.5/1998 to the Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam. However, it is made clear that both the cases shall be tried afresh.
The writ petitions are disposed of as above.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE ms