The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice in conducting enquiries and highlighted the limited power of the court to interfere with the findings of fact made by the Labour Court.

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

1. This writ petition is filed by the Superintendent, Venkathanam estate challenging Exhibit P8 preliminary order and Exhibit P12 award issued by the Labour Court, Ernakulam under the Industrial Disputes Act. The dispute was with regard to the dismissal of four employees employed as tappers and general worker/spare tapper in the estate. The allegation was that on 08.10.1994 at about 10 am, five workmen waylaid the petitioner uttering obscene words and rushed towards him with an intent to cause harm. The petitioner had to rush to the estate jeep and retreat to the factory. They later gheraoed the petitioner in front of his office and the police had to be summoned to remove the workmen from the premises.

2. Show cause notices were issued to the workmen on these allegations. Replies were submitted by the workers, but Exhibit P3 charge sheet was issued on 19.10.1994 against them. The charge was that the five workmen had shouted, abused the Superintendent and rushed at him putting him in fear of bodily injury and he had boarded the jeep and gone to the office. The workers had followed him to the estate office and had created an unruly scene and gheraoed the Superintendent without permitting him to go out and had thus violated Clause 22(h) of the standing orders applicable to plantation workers. An Advocate of the Kottayam Bar was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The first sitting of the enquiry was held on 12.11.1994. The workman had submitted applications before the Enquiry Officer stating that no subsistence allowance was disbursed to them and they would not be able to attend the enquiry for lack of means. When the enquiry was posted on 30.12.1994, the workmen had appeared and requested that their application for orders to release the subsistence allowance should be taken at the earliest. It is recorded by the Enquiry Officer as follows:-

“I informed them that the enquiry was not the for discussing their subsistence allowance and they were advised to resort to their own means. Again the delinquents insisted that they will not sign the proceedings unless decision was taken regarding the subsistence allowance. I again informed them that decision regarding the subsistence allowance will be intimated to them by registered post. They were also told that the request for allowing the union president at the enquiry was also allowed. The enquiry was adjourned to 13-1-95.”

3. On 13.01.1995, the charges were read over and the statement of the delinquents were recorded. The enquiry was posted to several days thereafter and the delinquent workmen continued to attend most of the sittings. However, no orders were issued with regard to the subsistence allowance and the workers contend that no subsistence allowance was actually paid to them. Thereafter, the workers did not attend the enquiry and on 21.06.1995 they were set ex-parte. Thereafter, statements of the management witnesses were taken and the Enquiry Officer proceeded to find that the charges levelled against the workers stood proved. Based on the Report of Enquiry, a notice of dismissal dated 09.09.1995 was served on the workers. The workers filed claim statement before the labour court which was referred for adjudication. By Exhibit P8 preliminary order, the labour court held that the enquiry conducted by the employer was vitiated, since no subsistence allowance was disbursed to them and they were set ex-parte. It was found that this action of the Enquiry Officer was violative of the principles of natural justice. The enquiry was thus found to be vitiated. When Exhibit P8 order was challenged before this Court, the writ petition was dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the preliminary order also while challenging the award to be passed in the industrial dispute.

4. Thereafter, the labour court proceeded to take evidence on the charges. Oral and documentary evidence was adduced by the management. Though the workmen examined a witnes