Disposed

B.Pushpangathan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Oct 2013RP/744/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the Managing Director of Kerala State Beverages Corporation to verify if the review petitioner, ranked 303 in the seniority list, is entitled to rehabilitation benefits extended to other workers in WP(C) No. 35139/2003.

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director was directed to verify the petitioner's rank and extend the benefits of the earlier judgment to him within two months.

B.Pushpangathan Vs State of Kerala — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013/28TH POUSHA 1934

¶5

RP.No. 744 of 2004 (G) IN WP(C).35139/2003

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C).35139/2003 DATED 16-04-2004

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER/PETITIONER NO.4::

¶8

B.PUSHPANGATHAN, AGED 44 YEARS PUTHUPARAMBIL,KARUVATTA P.O.,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

STATE OF KERALA CHIEF SECRETARY,SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. LISHA M.G.

¶14

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

V. CHITAMBARESH, J

¶16

R.P. No. 744 of 2004 in WP(C) NO. 35139 OF 2003

¶17

Dated this the 18^th day of January, 2013

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The review petitioner was the fourth petitioner in WP(C) No. 35139/2003 disposed of by judgment dated 16.04.2004 by this court. The review petitioner contends that he is similarly placed as that of petitioners 1 to 3 in the writ petition. The review petitioner points out that he was serial No. 303 in the seniority list and was appointed in Toddy Shop No. 80 of Cherthala range.

¶20

The issue concerns the rehabilitation of the workers in the Kerala State Beverages Corporation consequent on the ban of sale of arrack in the Kerala State. I direct the second respondent Managing Director to verify whether the petitioner is included as rank No. 303 in the seniority list prepared for rehabilitation. The second respondent shall extend the benefit of the judgment in WP(C) No. 35139/2003 to the review petitioner also in case his name is found in the seniority list as contended.

¶21

¶22

RP No. 744/2004 in WP(C) No. 35139/2003

¶23

The needful shall be done within a period of two months from the

¶24

date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶25

The Review Petition is disposed of.

¶26

V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE

¶27

ncd

B.Pushpangathan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Pushpangathan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.C.Thomas Vs State Bank of Travancore

Georgy Joseph Vs Federal Bank Ltd.

Jancy Emmanuel Vs Kerala State Co-Operative Bank

Mariamma Xavier Vs Mathew

T.L. Gopakumar Vs the Tahsildar

C.H.Moidu Vs the Kozhikode District Panchayat & Ors.