Allowed

C.J.Mathai v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Kerala HC2 Dec 2014WP(C)/28702/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Retired lineman sought arrears of salary for a period initially marked as unauthorized absence but later found to be worked by industrial tribunal. Court disposed writ in admitted facts, directing establishment to settle dues and re-fix pension within four months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent Board to settle arrears of salary and re-fix pensionary benefits within four months as per industrial tribunal award.

C.J.Mathai Vs Kerala State Electricity Board — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 28702 of 2014 (K)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

C.J.MATHAI (RETIRED LINEMAN GRADE I) S/O.JOSEPH, CHIRAPPURATH, KIDANGOOR SOUTH P O, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM

¶9

RESPONDENT:

¶10

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY - 695 001.

¶11

BY SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

mbr/

¶14

WP(C).No. 28702 of 2014 (K)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶17

EXHIBIT P1:TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 20/2/2002 IN O.P. NO. 16089/98.

¶18

EXHIBIT P2:THE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29/6/2006 IN CLAIM PETITION NO. 34/02 BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM.

¶19

EXHIBIT P3:THE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24/8/2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT.

¶20

EXHIBIT P4:THE COPY OF HTE JUDGMENT DATED 4/1/2008 IN WPC 37238/2007 BEFORE THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

¶21

EXHIBIT P5:THE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25/1/2012 IN WPC NO 17052/08 BEFORE THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: - NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

¶27

W.P.(C)No.28702 of 2014 K

¶28

Dated this the 2^nd day of December, 2014

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself.

¶31

Briefly stated, the petitioner, having served as Lineman Grade I retired from the service of the respondent Board on 31.07.2001. While he was in service, as the petitioner was alleged to be absent from 01.12.1993 to 31.12.1994, treating it as unauthorised absence, the respondent Board did not pay him any salary or other service benefits for the said period.

¶32

WPC 28702/14

¶33

¶34

When the petitioner raised an industrial dispute based on the direction of this Court in Exhibit P1 judgment, the Industrial Tribunal, in turn, through Exhibit P2 award, directed the respondent Board to pay the arrears of salary, having found that the petitioner had actually worked during that period. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent Board filed W.P.(C)No.17052/2008 and invited Exhibit P5 judgment, which in fact confirmed the award of the Industrial Tribunal. On petitioner's part, having made a representation for the implementation of the award and having failed in his efforts, he once again approached this Court and invited Exhibit P4 judgment. Despite these multiple rounds of litigation, the respondent Board does not seem to have settled the issue by paying the arrears of salary and other benefits to the petitioner. Under those circumstances, the petitioner has approached the Court, yet again.

¶35

The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Board has fairly admitted that the Board is bound to pay the

¶36

WPC 28702/14

¶37

¶38

arrears of salary for the period in question along with other service benefits to the petitioner and that it is only a matter of time before the Board could settle all the dues of the petitioner taking into account the period from 01.12.1993 to 31.12.1994 as part of his service.

¶39

In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the admission made by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Board, this Court disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent Board to settle the service benefits of the petitioner in terms of Exhibit P2 award, as has been confirmed subsequently by this Court, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is further directed that the Board shall re-fix the pensionary benefits of the petitioner taking into account the period mentioned above.

¶40

Dama Seshadri Naidu, Judge

¶41

tkv

C.J.Mathai v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.J.Mathai v. Kerala State Electricity Board

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.K. Sajan Vs the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

The Manager, Kambil Mopila Higher Secondary School Vs State of Kerala

Nikhil Pratheek P.J. Vs Union of India

Shakeela Beevi Vs State of Kerala

Musfina(Minor) Vs Controller of Government Examinations

K.K.Sajeevu Vs Cochin Devaswom Board