Dismissed

P.B.Sasi v. Kerala State Bamboo Corporation

Kerala HC17 Feb 2009WA/2870/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ appeal challenging the Single Judge's refusal to interfere with a Labour Court award. The Court held there were no grounds to interfere as the Labour Court correctly did not reinstate an employee dismissed for serious misconduct before completing four years of service, while allowing discharge benefits.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

P.B.Sasi Vs Kerala State Bamboo Corporation — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 28TH MAGHA 1930

¶5

WA.No. 2870 of 2007

¶6

----------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.NO.995/2001 DATED 15/06/2006.

¶7

APPELLANT/ PETITIONER:

¶8

--------------------------------------

¶9

P.B.SASI, PUTHENVEETTIL HOUSE, IRATTAYAR P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. MR.PAULSON C.VARGHESE.

¶11

RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS:

¶12

------------------------------------------------

¶13

1. KERALA STATE BAMBOO CORPORATION, ANGAMALY P.O., REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶14

2. LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K. MEERA, R1 BY ADVS. MR.B.S.KRISHNAN, MR..K.ANAND, SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN.

¶16

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

prv.

¶18

J.B.KOSHY, Ag.C.J & V.GIRI, J.

¶19

W.A.NO.2870 OF 2007 ()

¶20

Dated this the 17^th day of February, 2009

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

KOSHY,Ag.CJ.

¶23

Appellant/Petitioner was employed as a plant operator in the 1^st respondent's factory. He joined service in February 1986. He was placed under suspension by order dated 5.1.1990 and he was charge sheeted for very serious misconducts. An enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and appellant was given full opportunity to participate in the enquiry. Enquiry Officer found that except one charge, all other charges were proved. The employer, after considering the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the appellant's explanation, imposed the punishment of dismissal of the appellant and the dismissal was referred for adjudication before the Labour Court. Labour Court also found that enquiry was conducted fairly and properly and considering the nature of misconducts proved, Labour court found that appellant is not entitled to be reinstated with or without backwages but converted dismissal

¶24

W.A.2870/07

¶25

¶26

into discharge so that he will get his gratuity and retiral benefits if any. The learned Single Judge found that no interference is required in the award as there is no lack of jurisdiction or illegality in the award and the misconducts proved in the enquiry are serious. We are of the opinion that no grounds are made out to interfere in the impugned judgment in an intra contra appeal. It cannot be stated that the Labour Court was in error in converting dismissal into discharge and not giving the benefit of reinstatement. Before completing even four years service, appellant started his misbehavior and such a person was not given the relief of reinstatement considering the nature of misconducts committed by him. We are of the opinion that no grounds are made out to interfere in the impugned judgment, and hence, this appeal is dismissed.

¶27

J.B.KOSHY ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶28

V.GIRI JUDGE

¶29

prp

¶30

J.B.KOSHY & THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JJ.

¶31

M.F.A.NO. OF 2006 ()

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

6^th November, 2008

P.B.Sasi v. Kerala State Bamboo Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.B.Sasi v. Kerala State Bamboo Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.H.Pavithran Vs State of Kerala

M.a.Habeebullah Vs State of Kerala

The Assistant Engineer, K.S.E.B. Vs Chandrika Plastic Industries

P.P. Johny Vs State of Kerala and Others

M/S Neelima Tours and Travels Vs Union Bank of India

A.Chandrasekharan Nair Vs State of Kerala