1. The management, a Co-operative Society, impugn Exhibits P10, P11 and P12 orders of the Labour Court, Kollam. Exhibit P10 is an order rejecting an application filed by the management, for permission to adduce evidence, in support of the charges levelled against the worker. Exhibit P11 is a preliminary award, finding the enquiry conducted by the management to be in violation of the principles of natural justice. Exhibit P12 is the award passed, wherein the question as to the maintainability raised by the management, on the ground of the worker being not covered under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for brevity “the ID Act”] and the sustainability of the dismissal of the worker was negatived as per order dated 25.02.1994.

2. The 1st respondent herein, who was the Secretary of the management-Society, was proceeded against for misconducts alleged of misappropriation of funds. The management is said to have conducted a domestic enquiry, which ended in the finding of guilt against the worker, on the charges levelled and as a consequence, in her dismissal. The justifiability of such dismissal was the issue referred for adjudication to the Labour Court. The management remained ex-parte in the proceedings and the Labour Court took the evidence of the 1st respondent and finding the enquiry to be bad, directed reinstatement with backwages. The management challenged the same in an Original Petition before this Court, which concluded with Exhibit P7, ordering a remand.

3. Before this Court in the Original Petition, the management contended that the finding of the Labour Court with respect to the enquiry being improper and the consequent finding of punishment to be unjustified, was without any basis. This Court found that the enquiry report was not gone into by the Labour Court. It was held that without even seeing the enquiry report, it was not proper for the Labour Court to have held it to be one conducted improperly. On such findings, the award was set aside and the Industrial Dispute was restored back to the file of the lower Court. The Labour Court was directed to afford opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence and dispose of the case within a period of four months.

4. Before the Labour Court, the management filed Exhibit P8 application, contending that the enquiry files are missing. The specific plea taken was that the enquiry files were, at the earlier point of time, entrusted with the Advocate who was engaged in the matter. The Advocate had not appeared in the proceedings; nor were the enquiry files produced. This, in fact, resulted in the management being set ex parte and an award being passed without the Labour Court having an opportunity to go through the enquiry files. The management, hence, sought for leading evidence in the matter in support of the charges, which was rejected as per Exhibit P10.

5. In Exhibit P10, the Labour Court found that though the management had filed a written statement and additional written statement to meet the claim made in the claim statement of the worker, no specific prayer was made to lead evidence in support of the charges; in the contingency of the enquiry being set aside. This was attempted to be explained by the management as a bona fide omission on the part of the management and its earlier counsel. The Labour Court relying on the decisions in Karnataka State Road Transport Corpn. v. Lakshmidevamma [(2001) 5 SCC 433] and Edayar Ksheerolpadaka Sahakarana Sangham v. Industrial Tribunal [2007 (2) KLT 613] found that the management has to seek for opportunity at the first time and that having not been done, no permission to adduce evidence can be granted on a subsequent application.

6. The preliminary question with respect to the sustainability of the enquiry proceedings were then gone into. The enquiry files and report not being available with the Labour Court, definitely the question could not be examined as directed by this Court in Exhibit P7. However, the sa