Petitioners seeking reinstatement and monetary benefits referenced Supreme Court precedents but were dismissed. The court held that the relief could not be granted, directing petitioners to explore other remedies.
The original petition was dismissed with no costs awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
FRIDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2007 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1928
OP.No. 18376 of 1999(K)
---------------------------------PETITIONERS:
---------------------
1. PRABHAKARAN M., BINDU BHAVAN, CHOOLATHERUVU, MUTHUKULAM.
2. MURALIDHARAN K., VAZHASSERIL, CHOOLATHERUVU, MUTHUKULAM.
BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION LIMITED., KAYAMKULAM COMBINED CYCLE POWER PROJECT, NANGIARKULANGARA, ALLAPPEY.
3. THE ADDITIONAL GENERAL MANAGER, NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION LIMITED., KAYAMKULAM COMBINED CYCLE POWER PROJECT, NANGIARKULANGARA, ALLEPPEY.
4. THE REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL), KOCHI – 682 016.
5. E.DOMINIC, UDAYAGIRI, CHOOLATHERUVU P.O., CHOOLATHERUVU.
6. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR, NEW DELHI.
BY ADV. SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN, ADDL.CGSC for R6 SRI.K.ANAND for R1,R2 & R3 SRI. JOHN VARGHEESE, ASST.S.G.
THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/03/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
O.P.NO.18376/1999 K
ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.30180/1999 IN O.P.NO.18376/1999 K
DISMISSED
02/03/2007
SD/-PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
/TRUE COPY/
Kss
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.
O.P. No. 18376 OF 1999
Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2007
JUDGMENT
Even though very persuasive submissions were made before me by Sri. P.B. Suresh Kumar, Learned counsel for the petitioner who relied on the judgment on Secretary, Haryana State Electricity Board V.Suresh and others [AIR 1999 SC 1160] and having regard to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka V. Umadevi [2006 (4) SCC 1] and the terms of Ext.P1, I am of the view that the relief which is sought for in the Writ Petition i.e. for issuance of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding respondents 1 to 3 to reinstate the petitioners in service, absorb them in regular establishment and provide them all monetary consequences cannot be granted at all. Petitioner will have to work out his remedies if available elsewhere. The Original Petition will stand dismissed. No costs.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE
btt
OP No.18376/1999
2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioners seeking reinstatement in service and monetary consequences should be granted the relief claimed in the writ petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Secretary, Haryana State Electricity Board V.Suresh and othersReferred¶40
Secretary, Haryana State Electricity Board V.Suresh and others [AIR 1999 SC 1160] · Who else cites this
State of Karnataka V. UmadeviReferred¶40
State of Karnataka V. Umadevi [2006 (4) SCC 1] · Who else cites this
PRABHAKARAN M.
MURALIDHARAN K.
NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION LIMITED.
THE UNION OF INDIA
E.DOMINIC
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
