The High Court of Kerala dismissed review petitions filed by an aided college challenging a writ judgment granting back wages. The court held there were no errors apparent on the face of the record as the relief was limited to the judgment date.
Review petitions R.P. No. 1009 of 2014 and R.P. No. 1010 of 2014 were dismissed; no order on costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC &
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2016/20TH VAISAKHA 1938
RP.No. 1009 of 2014 IN WA.1645/2010
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WA 1645/2010 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 23-09-2014
REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT:
THE COCHIN COLLEGE REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
COCHIN-2.
BY ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
MUKOLAKKAL P.O., KUDAPPANAKKUNNU, TRIVANDRUM-14.
R BY SRI. AJAYAKUMAR R BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SOJAN JAMES
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-05-2016 ALONG WITH R.P.1010/14, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ANTONY DOMINIC & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.No.1009 of 2014 in W.A.No.1645 of 2010 & R.P.No.1010 of 2014 in W.A.No.1866 of 2010
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of May, 2016
ORDER
Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.
A very long drawn legal battle refuses to die down.
R.P.Nos.1009 & 1010 of 2014
:: 2 ::
albeit, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is not the petitioner’s case that the respondent is a workman amenable to the Industrial Disputes Act. Nor can we at this stage convert a Review Petition into an Industrial Dispute.
R.P.Nos.1009 & 1010 of 2014
:: 3 ::
contentions so as to determine whether they raise any reviewable issues or peter out as a prosaic effort to further postpone the inevitable—the implementation of the judgment.
is said to be the absence of malice in the conduct of the management. According to him, the direction to pay back-wages is nothing but penalising the Management for no fault of its. We, however, regret our inability to subscribe to the petitioner’s point of view. Direction to pay back wages does not necessarily depend on what is termed as the conduct of the management. Respondent has repeatedly knocked the doors of the management to have him reemployed in terms of the Government directions. It is the
R.P.Nos.1009 & 1010 of 2014
:: 4 ::
Management that took a different view and pressed on with litigation, endlessly.
record, leave alone an arithmetic or clerical error.
Accordingly, we dismiss the review petitions. No order on
costs.
ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE
jes
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the judgment suffered any error apparent on the face of the record warranting review.
Whether the direction to pay back wages penalized the management for no fault of its.
The Cochin College
Ajith Kumar K.
The State of Kerala
The Secretary to Government, Higher Education
The Director of Collegiate Education
Antony Dominic
Dama Seshadri Naidu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
