Proper notification of dismissal is mandatory for invoking limitation under the Industrial Disputes Act.

JUDGMENT :

K. Babu, J.

The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the award dated 09.08.2018 passed by the Labour Court, Kollam in Industrial Dispute No.61 of 2015. The workman is the petitioner.

The facts

2. Respondent No.2 is a newspaper establishment as defined in Section 2 (d) of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'). The petitioner is a working Journalist as defined in Section 2 (f) of the Act. As per Section 3 of the Act, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are applicable to the working Journalists also. The petitioner joined the service of respondent No.2, the Deshabhimani Daily, in 1990 as Sub Editor/Reporter. He was promoted as Senior Sub Editor and Chief Sub Editor.

2.1. As per order dated 17.03.2007, the petitioner was placed under suspension. The order of suspension contains certain allegations as to anti-party activities. The petitioner denied the allegations and assured the management that he would maintain more harmonious relation with the party. Therefore, the suspension was revoked by order dated 10.10.2007.

2.2. The petitioner was again suspended by order dated 12.01.2008, pending enquiry. A charge sheet was issued on 12.05.2008. The petitioner submitted explanation to the charges on 03.06.2008, denying the allegations in the charge. On 30.10.2008, the Deshabhimani Daily published a news item stating that the petitioner was dismissed from the service of respondent No.2. 3. The petitioner challenged his dismissal from service by filing Industrial Dispute No.61 of 2015 before the Labour Court, Kollam. The relevant pleadings set up by the petitioner are as follows:

3.1. The allegations in the charge memo dated 12.05.2008 were vague. He had submitted an explanation on 03.06.2008 expressing his willingness to prove innocence. Nothing was heard thereafter for months together and on 30.10.2008, the Deshabhimani Daily published a news item stating his dismissal from service. He did not get any intimation from the management as to the dismissal. No amount was paid towards subsistence allowance during his period of suspension.

3.2. When the petitioner came across the news item regarding his dismissal in the Deshabhimani Daily on 30.10.2008, he sent a registered letter on 01.12.2008 to the General Manager enquiring whether the news was true or not and requesting a copy of the dismissal order. No reply was given by the General Manager. The petitioner, therefore, presumed that the news item was incorrect. He went on sending registered letters to the General Manager seeking payment of subsistence allowance and reminding that disciplinary enquiry was yet to commence. But, the General Manager did not care to send any reply.

3.3. On 25.05.2011, another letter was sent to the General Manager seeking subsistence allowance. There was no response to that letter also. In such circumstances, on 09.12.2014, the petitioner submitted a complaint before the Labour Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram alleging denial of employment. The Inspector of Newspaper Establishments initiated conciliation proceedings and issued notice to the Management.

3.4. The General Manager by his letter dated 02.02.2015 admitted that the management had dismissed the petitioner from their service. The General Manager also produced copies of the enquiry notice, enquiry report, dismissal order, postal certificate, press release, etc. The petitioner was also served with the copies of documents during the conciliation proceedings. It was at that time he could realise that the management had passed an order of dismissal against him on 29.10.2008. The petitioner was not served with the notice of enquiry. The findings of the Enquiry Officer are based on surmises and conjectures. It is vitiated by mala fides. The enquiry report was also not served on the petitioner. No second show cause notice was issued to him. The documents relied on by the management are frivolous