Baby John Vs. General Manager, Parvathy Mills Ltd. and anr.

- code of civil procedure, 1908.[c.a. no. 5/1908]. order 9, rule 4: [v.k. bali, cj, kurian koseph & k. balakrishnan nair, jj] restoration of petition for enhancement of maintenance dismissed for default held, application under order 9, rule 4 c.p.c., is not maintainable. reason being while exercising powers under section 7(2)(a) and entertaining maintenance petition under section 125 of cr.p.c., family court cannot be deemed or treated as civil court. proceedings for maintenance before the family court under section &(2)(a) is criminal in nature. [kunhimohammammed v nafeesa, 2003 (1) klt 364; 2004 cri lj 1000 (ker) overruled]. reference to full bench; held, single judge cannot refer the case to full bench. he can refer the case to division bench. power to refer to full bench is expressly reserved to division bench. merely because a single judge/division bench entertains another view or merely because another view is possible, the judgment shall not be distinguished. - in any case, this is not a fit case where the limited jurisdiction of judicial review can be invoked to upset the findings made by the enquiry officer as also by the labour court, kollam, through a well discussed order.orderm.r. hariharan nair, j.1. the petitioner was a worker of parvathy mills, kollam. he is aggrieved that the labour court, kollam upheld the order of the management passed in disciplinary proceedings and confirmed the dismissal of the petitioner along with 9 others in exhibit p6 award.2. the charge against the petitioner was that in the course of an illegal strike he, along with others tried to push a big godrej steel almirah on to an officer of the mills where he was working and that if no one had blocked the almirah it would have fallen on the officer with fatal results. it was also alleged that the petitioner at the time was in drunken condition. 3. after due enquiry, the enquiry officer confirmed the fact that as alleged in the charge, the said incident did took place and it was thereupon that the management imposed punishment of dismissal from service which ultimately resulted in the impugned order.4. the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the occurrence took place as part of a labour agitation and lenient view is required. i do not agree. labour agitation also should be governed by law, and hooliganism cannot be tolerated under the pretext of labour agitation. the petitioner, undoubtedly, proved himself to be unworthy of continuing in service in the mills. in any case, this is not a fit case where the limited jurisdiction of judicial review can be invoked to upset the findings made by the enquiry officer as also by the labour court, kollam, through a well discussed order.5. the original petition is found to be without merit.