Newspaper Publication Can't Substitute Formal Service Of Dismissal Notice On Employee: Kerala High Court

Justice K Babu, clarified the legal interpretation of the limitation period under the Industrial Disputes Act while setting aside a Labour Court decision that dismissed a challenge to dismissal as time-barred.

The case arose from a writ petition filed by K S Hariharan, a journalist formerly employed by Deshabhimani Daily, challenging the Labour Court's decision. Hariharan had been dismissed from service in October 2008, with a news item announcing the dismissal appearing in Deshabhimani on October 30, 2008. However, no formal communication of the dismissal was served on him until 2015, when the newspaper management produced it during conciliation proceedings.

The petitioner approached the Labour Court in 2015 under Section 2A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act alleging illegal termination. The Labour Court dismissed his application on the ground that it was barred by limitation under Section 2 A (3), reasoning that the limitation began on the date of the newspaper report.

The question before the Court was whether the news report stating an employee's dismissal constitutes effective communication of a dismissal order under the Industrial Dispute Act, so as to trigger the limitation period under Section 2 A(3).

Justice K Babu observed that “The news item published in a newspaper is not sufficient compliance of service of the order of dismissal...The finding of the Tribunal to the contrary is erroneous and perverse.”

The Court rejected the employer's reliance on a certificate of posting dated October 30, 2008, observing that such a certificate is not conclusive proof of service. Referring to precedents from the Supreme Court, including L.M.S. Ummu Saleema v. B.B. Gujaral (1981) and State of Maharashtra v. Rashid B. Mulani (2006), the Court highlighted that certificates of posting are merely permissive presumptions and can be rebutted.

Furthermore, the court observed that on the application of section 16 and 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, the presumptions of fact are discretionary and rebuttable, especially in service-related disputes where consequences are severe.

In this case, the petitioner had consistently and credibly denied receipt of the dismissal order. The Court found his conduct — including repeated letters requesting confirmation and copies of the order — to be bona fide and convincing.

Setting aside the Labour Court's decision, the High Court restored the Industrial dispute and directed the Labour Court to consider the matter afresh.

Case Title - K S Hariharan v The Labour Court Kollam and Anr

Citation - 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 470

Case No - WP(C) 14688/ 2019

Counsel for Petitioner - A Jayasankar, Manu Govind, Nimmy Johnson, S Sabarinadh, Ayesha Maria John

Counsel for Respondent - C. S Sheeja (Sr. GP), G Biju, S Jayaprakash