The Labour Court cannot review its own orders except under limited circumstances; jurisdiction persists for adjustments in extraordinary circumstances, especially during the pandemic.

JUDGMENT :

SYAM KUMAR V.M., J.

1. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 03.03.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.24282 of 2021. The appellant was the petitioner in the said W.P.(C) and the respondent was the respondent therein.

2. The respondent, who was a Nursing Assistant, was terminated from service on 05.04.2018 after due enquiry. She raised Industrial Dispute (ID) No.49 of 2018 before the Labour Court, Kollam, and the case proceeded as envisaged. After the enquiry officer was examined before the court, the respondent filed an I.A. seeking permission to file an additional claim statement. An objection was filed by the appellant to the said I.A., pointing out that the Kerala Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957, do not envisage the filing of an additional claim statement. The said objection was not accepted by the Labour Court and vide Ext.P5 order dated 12.11.2020, the additional claim statement was accepted. Since in Ext.P5 order, it had been erroneously stated that the appellant had failed to point out the absence of pleadings regarding the validity of the enquiry, an IA was filed by the appellant to expunge the observation. Thereafter, the ID was posted on various dates for hearing the said IA, but there was no appearance for the respondent consecutively. Finally, on 11.02.2021, the case was posted to 08.04.2021 for rendering the Award. On that date, the Award was rendered and the case was posted for pronouncement to 28.04.2021. In the meantime, the respondent on 28.04.2021 applied to review the order dated 11.02.2021, by which the case was reserved for rendering the Award. No application for setting aside the Award was filed. The Award, which had already been rendered, remained, and it was sent to the Government for publication. Appellant filed objections to the I.A. seeking review, pointing out that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to review its orders and that the award, having already been passed on 08.04.2021, the earlier order dated 11.02.2021 cannot now be reviewed. However, the application for reviewing the Order was allowed by the Labour Court by Ext.P10 order on 12.08.2021, and the award already rendered was set aside. Aggrieved by the same, the Writ Petition was filed by the appellant seeking to quash the Exts.P5 and P10 orders rendered by the Labour Court, Kollam, allowing the respondent to file the additional claim statement and reviewing its own earlier order dated 11.02.2021. The following prayers were sought in the W.P. (C):

“a) A writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing and setting aside Exts.P5 and P10 orders;

b) Hold that the Award passed by the Labour Court, Kollam on 08.04.2021 in I.D.No.49/2018 is final and is liable to be published as provided in Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act;

c) Issue such other writ, order or direction as are deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, dismissed the W.P.(C) inter alia holding that the Labour Court proceedings were conducted during a period when the State and the Country were affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, and considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, there was no illegality in the orders rendered by the Labour Court, Kollam. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the W.P. (C), this Writ Appeal has been filed by the appellant.

4. Heard Sri.P.Ramakrishnan, Advocate appearing for the appellant and Sri.Liju V.Stephen, Advocate appearing for the respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is erroneous and unsustainable in law. The learned Single Judge has overlooked the legal position that Rule 10B of the Kera