Allowed

A.Santhosh Naik v. the Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board

Kerala HC24 Jun 2015WP(C)/14614/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ petition challenging a order allowing impleadment of a daily wage worker in proceedings concerning the petitioner's reinstatement. The Court held no violation of natural justice occurred regarding the impleadment order itself.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed the writ petition challenging the impleadment order; directed the 1st respondent to complete appeal proceedings within one month after hearing parties.

A.Santhosh Naik Vs the Commissioner, Malabar… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/3RD ASHADHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).NO. 14614 OF 2015 (B) ----------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

A.SANTHOSH NAIK SANDHYA NILAYA, NEAR BAIDARKALA GARODI, ADKATHABAIL KASARAGOD P.O., KASARAGODU.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.SHABU SREEDHARAN SRI.S.VIJAYAN SRI.N.MUHAMMAD SAJU SRI.C.PAULOSE SRI.SREEDHARAN KARATTA SMT.RESHMA ABDUL RASHEED

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD KOZHIKODE-673006.

¶11

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, KOZHIKODE-673006. 3. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER SREE MALLIKARJUNA TEMPLE, KASARAGOD-671121.

¶12

4. B.SUBRAMANYA NEAR KRISHNA TALKIES, ASHOKA NAGARA KASARAGOD KASABA VILLAGE, E KASARAGODU-671121.

¶13

R1&2 BY ADV. SRI.K.R.SUNIL, SC, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).NO. 14614 OF 2015 (B)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

EXHIBIT P1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 8.6.2012.

¶19

EXHIBIT P2: THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN AP1/2014 DATED 30.6.2014.

¶20

EXHIBIT P3: THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM IN AP 10/2014 DATED 29.7.2014.

¶21

EXHIBIT P4: THE TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO.10/2015 IN AP 10/2014 DATED 18.3.2015.

¶22

EXHIBIT P5: THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 23.3.2015.

¶23

EXHIBIT P6: THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 25.3.2015.

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS::NIL

¶25

//TRUE COPY//

¶26

P.A TO JUDGE

¶27

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶28

............................................................. W.P.(C).No.14614 of 2015 ............................................................. Dated this the 24^th day of June, 2015

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

The petitioner who was appointed as Watchman cum Mike Operator in the Sree Mallikarjuna Temple, Kasaragodu, was aggrieved by a suspension order that was served on him by the 3^rd respondent. He, therefore, preferred an appeal against the said order before the 2^nd respondent, who vide Ext.P2 order, directed the 3^rd respondent to reinstate him with back wages. It would appear that, the 3^rd respondent filed a further appeal before the 1^st respondent against the order directing reinstatement of the petitioner. While the matter was pending consideration before the 1^st respondent, the 4^th respondent who was engaged by the 3^rd respondent in the meanwhile, as Watchman cum Mike Operator on daily wage basis consequent to the suspension of the petitioner, filed an application seeking impleadment in the proceedings before the 1^st respondent. It is the case of the petitioner in the writ petition that, while counsel for the petitioner had submitted an objection to the impleadment application preferred by the 4^th respondent, the 1^st respondent passed Ext.P6 order without hearing the petitioner, allowing the impleadment application preferred by the 4^th respondent. In the writ petition, Ext.P6 order is impugned, interalia, on the ground that while passing

¶31

¶32

W.P.(C).No.14614 of 2015

¶33

Ext.P6 order, the 1^st respondent acted in gross violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶34

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel for the respondent Devaswom Board.

¶35

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, I find that Ext.P6 order is only one that is passed on an application filed by the 4^th respondent to implead himself in the proceedings before the 1^st respondent, where the issue to be considered is whether the petitioner has to be reinstated in service consequent to the suspension order passed against him. The 4^th respondent is a person, who was appointed on daily wage basis consequent to the suspension of the petitioner and has filed the impleadment application, probably aspiring for a direction to continue him in the services of the Board. At any rate, inasmuch as the petitioner cannot be said to be prejudiced by the mere impleadment of the 4^th respondent in the proceedings before the 1^st respondent, I am of the view that, there is no necessity for interfering with Ext.P6 order of the 1^st respondent. Accordingly, I dismiss the writ petition in its challenge against Ext.P6 order and

¶36

¶37

W.P.(C).No.14614 of 2015

¶38

direct the 1^st respondent to complete the proceedings in Ext.P3 appeal within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner and interested parties.

¶39

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶40

mns

A.Santhosh Naik v. the Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Santhosh Naik v. the Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom 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

Dr. N.C.Unnikrishnan Vs the State of Kerala

Venjaramoodu M.Ziyad Vs High Court of Kerala

R.Rajendraprasad Vs State of Kerala

O.Chandramathi Vs the National Institute of Technology

The Manager, Hidayathul Islam English Medium Up School Vs the State of Kerala

V.C. Lilly Vs Mavelikkara Municipality