Dismissed

V.G.Sudhakaran Pillai v. Union of India

Kerala HC3 Oct 2013WP(C)/4583/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition after observing that the respondents raised jurisdictional objections for the first time. Consequently, they were barred from raising limitation before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The petition was withdrawn with liberty to approach the Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to raise grievances before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

V.G.Sudhakaran Pillai Vs Union of India — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/11TH ASWINA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 4583 of 2012 (W)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. V.G. SUDHAKARAN PILLAI, JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT, ESI HOSPITAL, UDYOGAMANDAL.

¶8

2. C.V. BHASKARAN, PHARMACIST GRADE I, ESI HOSPITAL, UDYOGAMANDAL.

¶9

3. P.K. SARASWATHY, LAY SECRETARY & TREASURER, ESI HOSPITAL, UDYOGAMANDAL.

¶10

4. P.R. CHANDRASEKHARAN, DRIVER GRADE I, ESI HOSPITAL, UDYOGAMANDAL.

¶11

5. SIVADASAN V.S., NURSING ASSISTANT, ESI HOSPITAL, UDYOGAMANDAL.

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.THAMPAN THOMAS, SRI.B.V. JOY SANKER,

¶13

SRI.SANEESH KUNJUNJH.

¶14

RESPONDENT(S):

¶15

1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, SHRAM SHAKTHI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI- 110 001.

¶16

2. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION,

¶17

PANCHADEEP BHAVAN, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR GENERAL, PIN-110 001.

¶18

3. THE MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT, ESI HOSPITAL, UDYOGAMANDAL, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 501.

¶19

4. STATE OF KERALA,

¶20

REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LABOUR AND REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶21

5. THE DIRECTOR OF INSURANCE MEDICAL SERVICES, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.

¶22

R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASG OF INDIA. R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR, SC, ESI CORPN.

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

rs.

¶25

C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.

¶26

W.P.(C)No.4583 of 2012

¶27

Dated 3^rd October, 2013

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

When this matter is taken up for consideration today the learned counsel on both sides submitted that the issues involved in this writ petition are matters falling within the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal. It is further contended that the said position is made clear by a Division Bench of this Court in a common judgment dated 2.9.2013 in W.A.No.433 of 2013 and connected cases. In the said common judgment the Division Bench held that since the respondents have raised the question of jurisdiction for the first time they shall not raise the question of limitation before the Central Administrative Tribunal. I am of the view that the petitioners herein are also entitled to a similar order. In such circumstances since the respondents have raised the question regarding jurisdiction for the first time they shall not raise the question of limitation before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Subject to the above observation, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioners to raise their grievances involved in this writ petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing appropriate petitions.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

C.T.RAVIKUMAR

¶32

TKS

V.G.Sudhakaran Pillai v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.G.Sudhakaran Pillai v. Union of India

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

Soji J.Peter Vs the Director of Higher Secondary Education

N.N.Raghu Vs the Assistant Geneal Manager, RBI

T.S.Harikumar Vs Travancore Devaswom Board

Melba Rove Darwin Vs State Bank of Travancore

N.C.Krishnan Vs Executive Committee

V.C.Praveen Vs the State of Kerala