Dismissed

P. Ratheesan v. United Electrical Industries

Kerala HC23 Jul 2010WP(C)/10232/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, employee union leaders, filed a writ challenging demotion orders. The court dismissed the petition, holding that as workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act, they have an effective alternative remedy and are not maintainable in writ jurisdiction on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners' application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was dismissed as not maintainable.

P. Ratheesan Vs United Electrical Industries — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2010 / 1ST SRAVANA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 10232 of 2010(D)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONERS:

¶8

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

¶9

1. P.RATHEESAN, SENIOR ASSISTANT NOW DEMOTED AS JUNIOR ASSISTANT, UNITED ELECTRICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. PALLIMUKKU, KOLLAM- 691 010 RESIDING AT PALERY, MERA-12 MUNDACKAL EAST, KOLLM- 691 001.

¶10

2. V.GIREESH KUMAR, A GRADE HIGHER SCALE OPERATOR, NOW DEMOTED AS B GRADE OPERATOR, UNITED ELECTRICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. PALLIMUKKU, KOLLAM -691 010, RESIDING AT KARTHIKA, VADAKKUMTHALA EAST P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM- 690 536.

¶11

3. A.K.RAJESWARAN, A GRADE OPERATOR, NOW DEMOTED AS C GRADE OPERATOR, UNITED ELECTRICALS INDUSTRIES LTD., PALLIMUKKU, KOLLAM -691 010, RESIDING AT ANJILAKKATTUVELI, PATTANAKKADU P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPUZHA -688 531.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.B.SURESH KUMAR.

¶13

RESPONDENTS:

¶14

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

¶15

1. THE UNITED ELECTRICALS INDUSTRIES LTD., PALLIMUKKU, KOLLAM- 691 010, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶16

2. THE SENIOR PERSONAL OFFICER, UNITED ELECTRICALS INDUSTRIES LTD, PALLIMUKKU, KOLLAM -691 010.

¶17

R1 & R2 BY ADVS. SMT.T.S.MAYA (THIYADIL), SMT.C.VIJAYAKUMARI.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

W.P.(C). NO.10232/2010-D:

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶22

EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE OPEN LETTER DTD. 27/08/2008 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONERS AND TWO OTHERS.

¶23

EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DTD. 04/09/2008 ISSUED TO THE P.1. BY THE R.1.

¶24

EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 15/09/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE P.1. BEFORE THE R.1.

¶25

EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES DTD. 20/09/2008 ISSUED TO THE P.1. BY THE R.1.

¶26

EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES DTD. 20/09/2008 ISSUED TO THE P.2. BY THE R.1.

¶27

EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES DTD. 20/09/2008 ISSUED TO THE P.3. BY THE R.1.

¶28

EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DTD. 31/12/2009 ISSUED BY THE ENQUIRY OFFICER.

¶29

EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DTD. 18/02/2010 ISSUED TO THE P.1. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DTD. 18/02/2010 ISSUED TO THE P.2. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DTD. 18/02/2010 ISSUED TO THE P.3. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 04/03/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE P.1. BEFORE THE R.1.

¶30

EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 04/03/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE P.2. BEFORE THE R.1.

¶31

EXT.P.13: COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 04/03/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE P.3. BEFORE THE R.1.

¶32

EXT.P.14: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 11/03/210 ISSUED BY THE R.1. TO THE P.1. EXT.P.15: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 11/03/2010 ISSUED BY THE R.1. TO THE P.2. EXT.P.16: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 11/03/2010 ISSUED BY THE R.1. TO THE P.3.

¶33

EXT.P.17: COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT ON THE AUDIT OF ACCOUNTS OF THE COMPANY FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31/03/2009.

¶34

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBIT:

¶35

EXT.R1.A: COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE.

Prv.

W.P.(C) NO.10232 OF 2010(D)

¶40

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

Dated this the 23^rd day of July, 2010

¶44

J U D G M E N T

¶45

Petitioners are the employees of the first respondent

¶46

company, who are also leaders of the Trade Unions functioning in the establishment.

¶47

In this writ petition what is under challenge is Ext.P14 to Ext.P16 orders issued by the first respondent imposing on them, punishment of demotion.

¶48

It is stated that in their capacity as Trade Union leaders and in the best interest of the company, petitioners jointly issued Ext.P1, an open letter commending upon the performance of the company, which was published in the media also. This lead to the issuance of the memo of charges against them . Their explanation was not satisfactory to the management. Accordingly enquiry officer was appointed and in Ext.P7 report submitted they were found guilty. After complying with the procedural formalities, punishment has been imposed by Ext.P14 to Ext.P16. It is challenging the proceedings that the writ petition is filed.

¶49

WPC.No. 10232/2010

¶50

:2 :

¶51

Although several contentions on the merits have been raised, I do not think it necessary for this court to examine the contention. Admittedly petitioners are workman as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore they have an effective alternative remedy available under the provisions of the ID Act. In view of the above, I do not think that the writ petition should be entertained by this court.

¶52

Therefore, leaving it open to the petitioners to pursue their remedies under the Industrial Disputes Act and without expressing anything on the merits of the contentions raised by both sides, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶53

(ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE

¶54

vi/

P. Ratheesan v. United Electrical Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Ratheesan v. United Electrical Industries

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

K.K.Abdul Rafeek Vs State of Kerala

G.Sudheendran Vs State of Kerala

Shandeep Kakkarayil Vs State of Kerala

Murali.K.Sreedhar Vs Lambodaran Nair

Arun P.v.Uthaman Vs State of Kerala

K.T.George Vs Autokast Ltd.