Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice K. Babu allowed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of a workman by a newspaper establishment and set aside the award passed by the Labour Court, Kollam. The court directed the Labour Court to reconsider the matter afresh, observing that the application filed by the workman under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act was within the period of limitation. The court concluded that the publication of a news item stating the petitioner’s dismissal was not valid communication of the dismissal order and hence, could not trigger the commencement of the limitation period. Consequently, the court restored the industrial dispute to the file of the Labour Court for fresh consideration.

The petitioner, a working journalist under the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955, joined the service of the respondent newspaper in 1990 as a Sub Editor/Reporter and was later promoted to Senior Sub Editor and Chief Sub Editor. On 17.03.2007, the petitioner was suspended for alleged anti-party activities. The petitioner denied these allegations, assured improved conduct, and was reinstated on 10.10.2007.

Also Read: Supreme Court Calls For Clear Guidelines On ED Summons To Lawyers | Even If Advice Is Wrong It Is Privileged Communication

On 12.01.2008, the petitioner was again suspended, followed by a charge sheet dated 12.05.2008. He submitted his explanation on 03.06.2008 denying all allegations. On 30.10.2008, a news item in the respondent newspaper stated that the petitioner was dismissed. However, the petitioner claimed he was not officially informed or served with a dismissal order.

The petitioner sent a registered letter dated 01.12.2008 to the General Manager of the respondent establishment seeking confirmation of the news and a copy of the dismissal order. No response was received. Subsequent letters requesting payment of subsistence allowance and updates on the disciplinary proceedings also went unanswered. On 09.12.2014, the petitioner filed a complaint before the Labour Commissioner, alleging denial of employment.

During conciliation proceedings, the respondent’s General Manager admitted through a letter dated 02.02.2015 that the petitioner was dismissed. Enquiry records and a dismissal order dated 29.10.2008 were also produced for the first time. It was at this stage that the petitioner was formally served with copies of the relevant documents. Consequently, the petitioner invoked Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and filed Industrial Dispute No. 61 of 2015 before the Labour Court, Kollam.

The management argued that the dismissal order was issued on 29.10.2008 and dispatched via post on 30.10.2008, supported by a certificate of posting. They contended that the limitation period began from that date, rendering the application barred under Section 2-A (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court upheld this view, finding that the petitioner had knowledge of the dismissal from the news article dated 30.10.2008.

The petitioner challenged this conclusion, arguing that a news item could not serve as official communication of dismissal. He maintained that he was not served with the enquiry report, dismissal order, or a second show-cause notice, and the presumption of service based on the certificate of posting was rebutted by his consistent efforts to obtain official confirmation and documents.

The court observed: "Undoubtedly, the starting point of limitation would be the date of communication of the order of dismissal, discharge, retrenchment etc., to the workman." It further noted that: "The news item published in a newspaper is not sufficient compliance of service of the order of dismissal."

Regarding the Labour Court's reliance on the newspaper publication, the judgment recorded: "The finding of the Tribunal that the petitioner got the dismissal order from the Deshabhimani Daily dated 30.10.2008 is erroneous and perverse." The court explained: "The petitioner is entitled to know the grounds under which he was dismissed, discharged or terminated from service."

On the admissibility and reliability of the certificate of posting, the court referred to State of Maharashtra v. Rashid B. Mulani and L.M.S. Ummu Saleema v. B.B. Gujaral, quoting: "A certificate of posting may be of very little assistance, where the dispatch of such communications is disputed or denied." The court further stated: "Presumptions of fact are inferences which the mind naturally and logically draws from given facts... Not only are they always rebuttable, but the trier of fact may refuse to make the usual or natural inference notwithstanding that there is no rebutting evidence."

In the instant case, the court stated: "The management could have responded to Exhibit P3 communication that they had sent the dismissal order on 30.10.2008. In the absence of any response to Exhibit P3... the contention of the petitioner gets credibility."

The court accepted the petitioner’s statement on oath that he did not receive the dismissal order until it was produced in 2015 during conciliation proceedings. "His statement on oath that no copy of the order was delivered to him is sufficient to rebut the presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, if at all drawn," the court recorded.

The High Court concluded that the Labour Court had erred in dismissing the application on the ground of limitation and issued the following directives:

Also Read: Kerala HC Upholds Prosecution of Director as Representative of Dissolved Company in ₹100 Crore PMLA Case | Recommends Legal Framework to Prosecute Non-Existent Entities

"The Writ Petition is allowed. The order dated 09.08.2018 in Industrial Dispute No.61 of 2015 (Ext.P15) passed by the Labour Court, Kollam stands set aside."

"The Industrial Dispute No.61 of 2015 stands restored to file. The matter is remitted back to the Labour Court for consideration afresh."

The court clarified that it had not adjudicated upon any other issues except the question of limitation. "It is made clear that I have not considered the merits of any of the contentions other than the question of limitation."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Shri. A. Jayasankar, Sri. Manu Govind, Smt. Nimmy Johnson, Shri. S. Sabarinadh, Ayesha Maria John

For the Respondents: Sri. G. Biju, Shri. S. Jayaprakash (Madavoor), Smt. C.S. Sheeja (Sr. GP)

Case Title: K.S. Hariharan v. The Labour Court, Kollam & Another

Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:55681

Case Number: W.P (C) No.14688 of 2019

Bench: Justice K. Babu