Dismissed

Surendran P.A v. M/S. Iti Limited

Kerala HC16 Oct 2012WP(C)/9278/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The writ petition challenging the petitioner's suspension as punishment and alleged transfer was dismissed. The Court ruled the petitioner, being a 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act, must approach the Labour Court via an industrial dispute, not the High Court under Article 226. The temporary project posting was upheld.

What did the court decide?

Interference under Article 226 of the Constitution is declined as the petitioner is a workman; the writ petition is dismissed.

Surendran P.A Vs M/S. Iti Limited — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/24TH ASWINA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 9278 of 2012 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

SURENDRAN P.A., ST.NO.1065(P),P C B DEPARTMENT,M/S ITI LIMITED, KANJIKODE WEST.P.O,PALAKKAD-678 623.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.VINOD JABAR SRI.JITHIN PAUL VARGHESE

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. M/S. ITI LIMITED, DOORVANI NAGAR,BANGALORE-560 016, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶11

2. M/S ITI LTD., KANJIKODE WEST.P.O,PALAKKAD- 678 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER-HR.

¶12

3. CHIEF MANAGER & ENQUIRY OFFICER, M/S. ITI LTD.,KANJIKODE WEST.P.O,PALAKKAD - 678 001.

¶13

4. CHIEF MANAGER(MANUFACTURING), M/S.ITI LTD,KANJIKODE WEST.P.O,PALAKKAD - 678 001.

¶14

R1-R4 BY ADV. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR R1-R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPINATH MENON R1-R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS R1-R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Kss

¶17

WPC.NO.9278/2012 H

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶20

P1: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SIGNED BY 33 LAST GRADE EMPLOYEES, DATED 07/04/2011.

¶21

P2: COPY OF THE LETTER FROM CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SRI.G.S.VINOD, STRESSING ON THE SAID PLIGHT OF LOWER GRADE EMPLOYEES DATED 05/07/2011.

¶22

P3: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM BYTHE 2ND RESPONDENT DECIDING TO HOLD AN ENQUIRY AGAINST THE PETITIONER DATED 30/07/2011.

¶23

P4: COPY OF THE STANDING ORDERS OF ITI LIMITED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 7 OF THE INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT (STANDING ORDERS) ACT, 1946.

¶24

P5: COPY OF THE LETTER BY PETITIONER DENYING ALL CHARGES ADDRESSED TO 2ND RESPONDENT, DATED 02/08/2011.

¶25

P6: UNDATED LETTER BY FEW EMPLOYEES ALLEGING THAT PETITIONER HAS MISUSED THEIR SIGNATURES.

¶26

P7: COPY OF EVIDENCE AGAINST PETITIONER DATED 13/10/2011.

¶27

P8: COPY OF MINUTES OF THE ENQUIRY PROCEEDINGS DATED 04/11/2011.

¶28

P9: COPY OF RESPONSE BY PETITIONER DATED 02/01/2012.

¶29

P10: COPY OF SUSPENSION ORDER AGAINST PETITIONER DATED 16/03/2012.

¶30

P11: COPY OF NEWS ITEM DATED 21/03/2012 IN DESHABHIMANI NEWS PAPER.

¶31

P12: COPY OF TRANSFER ORDER DATED 12/09/2012.

¶32

P13: COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 14/09/2012.

¶33

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS & ANNEXURES:

¶34

R1(A): COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 05/08/2011 ISSUED BY DGM HR.

¶35

ANNEX.A:COPY OF THE LETTER OF APPOINTMENT DATED 05/02/1992.

¶36

ANNEX.B: COPY OF ORDER DATED 17/07/2010 PROMOTING THE WRIT PETITIONER TO CATEGORY - D.

¶37

ANNEX.C: COPY OF ORDER DATED 30/07/2012 ISSUED TO ABDUL RAHIMAN DEPUTING HIM TO LUCKNOW AND AGRA FOR SECC.

¶38

ANNEX.D: COPY OF ORDER DATED22/06/2012 DEPUTING M/S,RAJAMANY & SIVADAS FOR SECC PROJECT AT LUCKNOW.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

Kss

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶43

W.P.(C). No. 9278 of 2012

¶44

Dated this the 16^th day of October, 2012

¶45

JUDGMENT

¶46

The petitioner who is a last grade employee in the service of

¶47

the respondent Company, is challenging the correctness and sustainability of Ext.P10 order of suspension imposed as a punishment, in respect of the alleged misconduct, which is stated as proved.

¶48

During the pendency of the above writ petition, the petitioner was permitted to report for duty at the cite of respondent company at Lucknow, as per Ext.P12 produced along with I.A.No.12525/2012. The transfer was intercepted as per interim order dated 19.09.2012, ordering the respondents to maintain 'status quo', which was being extended as per the relevant orders. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suspension itself is not sustainable either on facts or in law and that the petitioner is innocent of the offence alleged against him. It is only to harass the petitioner further, for having filed the present writ petition that, he has been caused to be

¶49

W.P.C. No. 9278 of 2012 -2-

¶50

transferred from Palakad to Lucknow vide Ext.P12.

¶51

The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Company submits with reference to the contents of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4 that, the misconduct committed by the petitioner was duly enquired into, particularly in respect of the forgery of signature of some other workers by the petitioner and also as to sending of letter to the Ministry and it was only on arriving at a finding on guilt as discernible from Ext.R1(a) enquiry report, that the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty as per Ext.P10, which is not assailable under any circumstance. The learned counsel further submits with reference to the grievance of 'transfer' projected in the I.A. that, Ext.P12 is not a transfer as such, and that the petitioner has been caused to report for work at Lucknow as part of the organizational interest in connection with the project work therein.

¶52

With reference to the memo dated 8.10.2012, filed on behalf of the respondents, the learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner has not been subjected to any discriminatory treatment and that, all other similar workers have also been sent

¶53

W.P.C. No. 9278 of 2012 -3-

¶54

to different projects, by turn, so as to meet the exigency of service and that the posting ordered as per Ext.P12 is only for a period of two months, after which the petitioner will be brought back to the Company's Unit at Palakad and will continue there on the rolls of Palakad Unit. The learned counsel further submits that, the temporary shifting is in connection with the SocioEconomic Caste Census Project (SECC) and that the works in all other states are over. Reference is also made to copies of different orders produced as Annexure B, C and D, deputing similar workers to Lucknow and such other places in connection with the project and all such workers have been brought back to the unit at Palakad. It is also stated that the respondents do not have any plant or Unit in Lucknow.

¶55

After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the grievance projected by the petitioner with regard to the alleged transfer to Lucknow unit is not with much merits, more so when, it is only a project assignment for two months. Further, the assertion made from the part of the respondent that, the petitioner will be brought back after two months and will continue in the rolls of the unit at Palakkad, is sufficient enough to protect

¶56

W.P.C. No. 9278 of 2012 -4-

¶57

his interest.

¶58

It is also relevant to note that the petitioner has not caused the writ petition to be amended, by challenging Ext.P12 produced along with the I.A.No.12525/2012 and the challenge in the writ petition stands confined only to Ext.P10. With regard to the challenge against the punishment imposed vide Ext.P10, it remains a fact that, the petitioner happens to be a 'workman' as defined under Section 2('s') of the I.D Act. If the petitioner is aggrieved of the action taken by the respondent, it is for the petitioner to raise an 'industrial dispute', in tune with the relevant provisions of I.D. Act and get it referred to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal, as the case may be, for adjudication. This Court finds that, the petitioner is not justified in approaching this Court directly by invoking the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226.

¶59

In the said circumstance, interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed.

¶60

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶61

Kp/-

Surendran P.A v. M/S. Iti Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendran P.A v. M/S. Iti Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.C.R.Elsy Vs the State of Kerala

Jinsa v. Vs Honourable High Court of Kerala, Represented by the Registrar(Recruitment and Computerisation), Er

Unnikrishnan Nair Vs the Travancore Devaswom Board

Sulaikha P.A. Vs State of Kerala

Manager, Auzillium School, Varakkad, Vs State

Dr.K.P.Swaroop Kumar Vs State of Kerala