THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.10.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Devan Ramachandran, J.

If we are to solely answer the polemic between the parties in this case, a judgment of this length would be unnecessary. But, for reasons we will presently record, we are also called upon to enter into important issues in the realm of judicial propriety, restraint, and discipline.

2. The appellant filed the Writ Petition –from the judgment in which, this Appeal arises – challenging Ext.P5 order of the learned Labour Court, Kollam.

3. The appellant was proceeded against disciplinarily by the first respondent - Thiruvananthapuram Service Co-operative Bank Limited No.T.131 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Bank’), which led to an order of dismissal against her. She approached the learned Labour Court through I.D.No.9/2019, in which, a preliminary Award in her favour was issued, setting aside enquiry report, for the reason that the charge sheet issued to her by the Chairman of the Disciplinary Action Sub- Committee was invalid. Thereafter, on 29.9.2023, the learned Labour Court issued a Final Award, setting aside the enquiry, as also the orders of punishment; but reserving liberty to the Bank to initiate fresh disciplinary action against the appellant, fixing a time frame of three months for its completion.

4. It is admitted that the Bank issued a fresh charge memo to the appellant only on 24.2.2024; and to have then constituted a Disciplinary Sub-Committee on 15.3.2024.

5. However, since the Award of the Labour Court had fixed the above mentioned time frame, the Bank filed I.A.No.21/2024 before the learned Labour Court, seeking enlargement of time for completion of disciplinary proceedings. This application was allowed by the Labour Court through Ext.P5 order.

6. The petitioner assailed Ext.P5 in the Writ Petition; but a learned Single Judge dismissed it through judgment dated 18.2.2026, declaring that the learned Labour Court had jurisdiction to extend the time earlier fixed by it.

7. This judgment was carried in Appeal by the appellant before a learned Division Bench, in Writ Appeal No.769/2026. The learned Bench noticed that, though there were two issues in the Writ Petition, as discernible from its pleadings, namely: (a) that Ext.P5 was vitiated, since learned Labour Court obtained no jurisdiction to have issued it; and (b) that its conclusions therein are illegal, the learned Judge had not adverted to, much less considered the latter. The appeal was thus allowed; and the learned Judge was requested to reconsider the Writ Petition on the afore issue.

8. The learned Single Judge has again dismissed the Writ Petition, through the impugned judgment dated 30.07.2026, approving Ext.P5; and alluding that a Division Bench, in Appeal, cannot ‘normally’ remand.

9. The appellant is thus in Appeal again;and vehemently argues that Ext.P5 is erroneous, both because, the learned Labour Court obtained no jurisdiction to issue it – having been rendered functus officio after a period of one month from the date of the award; and since the reasons stated therein are perverse, illegal and capricious.

10. We cannot have any cavil with the proposition in law that a Division Bench does not normally remand a matter for reconsideration of an issue decided by the Single Bench. However, any impression that a Division Bench cannot do so at all is also incorrect.

11. The power of a Division Bench to order remand to, or request consideration by, a Single Bench for valid cause – particularly that a germane aspect had not been considered or answered by it - is inherent.

12. As correctly noticed in the impugned judgment, a learned Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Town House Building Co-operative Society Limited v. Special Deputy Commissioner [AIR 1988 Karnataka 312] has opined under:

As a result of the aforesaid disc