Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

C.V.MOHANKUMAR, C/O. C.R.VINCENT versus ALPHONSA DEVASSY, W/O. MAYPPAN DEVASSY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


C.V.MOHANKUMAR, C/O. C.R.VINCENT v. ALPHONSA DEVASSY, W/O. MAYPPAN DEVASSY - WP(C) No. 34411 of 2006(V) [2007] RD-KL 12956 (13 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 34411 of 2006(V)

1. C.V.MOHANKUMAR, C/O. C.R.VINCENT,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. ALPHONSA DEVASSY, W/O. MAYPPAN DEVASSY,
... Respondent

2. CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LTD.,

3. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL,

4. DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER,

For Petitioner :SRI.P.I.DAVIS

For Respondent :SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

Dated :13/07/2007

O R D E R

S. SIRI JAGAN, J.

W.P.(C)NO.34411 OF 2006

DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF JULY, 2007



JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the management in I.D.No.14/06 before the Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad. He is challenging Ext.P3 award passed by the Tribunal in that I.D. Ext.P3 is an exparte award. The petitioner's contention is that no notice was served on him in the I.D. From the award, it is seen that notice addressed to him was returned 'unclaimed' and therefore, the petitioner was declared ex parte. The contention of the petitioner is that as is evident from Ext.P3 award, the petitioner's address is shown c/o the 2nd respondent and that is why the petitioner could not claim the notice.

2. Notice in this writ petition has been served on the 1st respondent, workman. However, there is no appearance for her.

3. From the averments in the writ petition, I am satisfied that the petitioner should be given another opportunity to contest the matter on merits since it is evident that the petitioner could not receive notice not because of any fault on his part. However, this shall be only on terms in so far as the 1st respondent is not in way of responsible for the factual situation. In the above circumstances, I quash Ext.P3 and direct the Industrial Tribunal to re adjudicate the W.P.(c)No.34411/06 2 dispute after affording an opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence. This shall be only on condition that the petitioner pays an amount of Rs.2,000/- to the 1st respondent as cost. The petitioner shall produce the certified copy of this judgment along with proof of payment of the costs before the Industrial Tribunal, on receipt of which only the Tribunal need continue adjudication of the dispute. If the petitioner does not pay cost as directed above, he would not be entitled to the benefits of this judgment and Ext.P3 award would stand confirmed. This writ petition is disposed of as above.

S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

Acd W.P.(c)No.34411/06 3


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.