The court emphasized the need for compliance with procedural norms under the Industrial Disputes Act when denying employment.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 18^th day of December, 2025 Syam Kumar V.M., J.

This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated

20.09.2022 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.29536 of 2022.

Appellants were the petitioners in the W.P.(C).

2. The W.P.(C) was filed by the appellants challenging the award dated 08.04.2022 of the Labour Court, Kozhikode in ID No.15 of 2020. By the said award, the Labour Court had held that the denial of employment to the 2^nd respondent workman by the appellant was unjustifiable and that the workman is entitled to be reinstated in service with 50% back wages from the date of denial of employment till the date of reinstatement, continuity of service and other attendant benefits.

3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the W.P.(C) inter alia holding that the management did not comply with the procedure prescribed under Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'ID Act') and that no ex parte inquiry had been conducted as mandated in law. Holding that the award of the Labour Court cannot be faulted with based on the preponderance of evidence and that there was no question of repugnancy, the W.P. (C) was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, this Writ Appeal is preferred.

4. Heard Sri.N.Raghuraj, Senior Advocate for the appellants and Sri.S.Vinod Bhat, Advocate for the 2^nd respondent.

5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the impugned judgment is erroneous and fit to be set aside. It is submitted that of the different contentions raised by the appellants, the learned Single Judge had only considered the contention regarding voluntary abandonment of employment by respondent No.2. The W.P. (C) was dismissed at the admission stage itself, and specific contentions raised in the Writ Petition were not addressed by the learned Single Judge.

6. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the appointment of the 2^nd respondent was to the cadre of supervisor, and the fact that he was discharging supervisory, managerial, and administrative functions assigned to him was specifically averred and contended. That he was not a workman as defined under Section 2 (s) (iv) of the ID Act had also been raised. The contentions on the said count were overlooked by the learned Single Judge. The pay scale of the 2^nd respondent was the highest among the pay scales granted to the staff of the 1^st appellant. The said fact would by itself show that the 2^nd respondent was working in the managerial cadre and not as a general worker as claimed by him. The learned Single Judge ought to have allowed the W.P.(C) holding that the 2^nd respondent was not a workman and the ID could not have been entertained at the first place. The 2^nd respondent had sought reinstatement in service 2 years and 4 months after abandoning the service. The inordinate delay in claiming reinstatement of service clearly pointed towards the voluntary abandonment of employment. The said aspect was also not considered by the Labour Court nor by the learned Single Judge. The specific contention of the appellants that the 2^nd respondent was gainfully employed after he had voluntarily abandoned the service of the 1^st appellant, did not engage the attention of the Labour Court nor the learned Single Judge. The evidence that had been brought forth, so as to substantiate the said contention was also brushed aside. Reliance is placed on the judgment inLourdes Hospital v. State of Kerala and another [2022 (2) KHC 185] in this respect. The learned Senior Counsel thus submits that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is unsustainable on more than one ground and is fit to b