Dismissed

K.Mohanakumar v. Government of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Jun 2016WP(C)/12557/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition by former workers seeking re-employment after the company the company restarted operations, dismissed holding no right to reinstatement exists under the termination scheme. Company may consider requests in its discretion.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioners may approach the company for discretionary re-employment subject to company's decision and law.

K.Mohanakumar Vs Government of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/19TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).NO. 12557 OF 2008 (T)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. K.MOHANAKUMAR,VALIA VEEDU
EDAVAL, OTTASEKHARAMANGALAM P.O.
2. RAJEEV KUMAR.S.R., SAJI COTTAGE, CHAMAVILA, ARYANAD P.O.
3. BENSINGH.J.S., KAITHAKUZHI VEEDU, KODANGARA,, CHENKAL P.O.
4. SHIBU.V.T., VIMAL BHAVAN, KARINGALUMMOODU, MANNAMKONAM P.O.
5. RIJULAL.V., PUTHUVAL VILAKAM, VENGANOOR,, VENGANOOR P.O.
6. STANLEY JOSE.E., VADAKKEKUDIYIRIPPU, KADAVATTARAM,, NEYYATTINKARA P.O.
7. T.EDWIN, CHARIVUVILA, KIZHAKKARIKU VEEDU, UCHAKKADA,, PAYATTUVILA P.O.
8. B.J.WILFRED, NEDIYAVARUVILA VEEDU, KATTACHALKUZHI P.O., PANAYARAKKUNNU.
9. V.SUPRIYA, KAILAS BHAVAN, KOLIYOOR, MUTTAKKAD P.O.
10. C.S.SUDHEER, KOYIKKAL KUZHI VEEDU, BHAGAVATHINADA P.O., BALARAMAPURAM (VIA).
11. BIJUSOMAN.S.J., BIJU BHAVAN, INCHIPULLU VILA,, MULLUVILA P.O.
12. SURESH.A., MAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, CHAPPATH,, KOTTUKAL P.O.
13. K.GIREESH KUMAR, KRISHNA VILASOM BUNGLOW,, KAVINPURAM, KATTACHALKUZHI P.O.
14. S.RAJEEV KUMAR, T.C.10/1793, MOHANA SADHANAM, KAVALLOOR,, VATTIYOORKKAVU P.O.
BY ADVS.SRI.L.MOHANAN
SMT.LIGEY ANTONY

¶8

WP(C).No. 12557 of 2008 (T)

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT.

¶11

2. KERALA STATE TEXTILES CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

3. TRIVANDRUM SPINNING MILLS LTD., BALARAMAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶13

R,R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN R,R2 BY ADV. SRI.GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA R1 BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.J.RAJASREE

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No. 12557 of 2008 (T)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶18

EXT.P1: COPY OF THE SELECTION MEMO EXT.P2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.05.2004 IN C.P.29/2002 EXT.P3: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 24.06.2003 EXT.P4: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE IN THE NAME OF THE 1ST PETITIONER EXT.P5: COPY OF THE KERALA KAUMUDI DAILY DATED 2.4.2008 EXT.P6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONERS

¶19

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(A): A TRUE COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT RELEASED BY THE COMPANY EXT.R1(B): A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(RT) NO.956/08/ID DATED 27.08.2008

¶20

//TRUE COPY//

¶21

P A TO JUDGE

¶22

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. ............................................................. W.P.(C).No.12557 of 2008

¶23

............................................................. Dated this the 9^th day of June, 2016

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

The petitioners were workers of the 3^rd respondent company. It is stated that they were absorbed as Badli workers after under going a period of training as apprentices. It is on record that the 3^rd respondent company wound-up pursuant to Ext.P2 judgment dated 19.05.2004 of this Court. It is seen that as part of the restructuring of State Level Public Enterprises (SLPEs) it was found necessary to reduce the manpower requirement in the 3^rd respondent company, and the Government therefore formulated and approved a Scheme called the Social Safety Net Programme (SSNP). Ext.P3 produced in the writ petition is a copy of the Government order together with the Scheme appended to it. The services of the petitioners, who were Badli workers in the company, were terminated in accordance with the provisions of Ext.P3 Scheme. Under the Scheme in question, the petitioners were entitled to an ex gratia payment equivalent to 45 days emoluments for every completed year of service. The Scheme also made it clear

¶26

-2-

¶27

W.P.(C). No.12557 of 2008

¶28

that the salary/wages for the purposes of estimating the ex gratia payment would comprise of the basic pay and dearness allowance only. It is not in dispute that the petitioners, while leaving the services of the company, were paid the ex gratia amounts that were contemplated in Ext.P3 Scheme. The facts in the writ petition would indicate that, subsequently, the petitioners came across a news item which indicated that the 3^rd respondent company had restarted its operations in 2008. This prompted the petitioners to approach the 3^rd respondent company with Ext.P6 representation for consideration of their case for re-employment in the company. When the said representation did not evoke any response, the petitioners approached this Court through the present writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to consider their claim.

¶29

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for the official respondents, and the learned Standing counsel for the 3^rd respondent company.

¶30

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I find that inasmuch as the termination of the services of the petitioners was in accordance with Ext.P3 Scheme whereunder the petitioners were

¶31

-3-

¶32

W.P.(C). No.12557 of 2008

¶33

paid the eligible benefits by way of ex gratia payment, the petitioners cannot claim any further benefit by way of reemployment under the 3^rd respondent company as of right, especially since the said benefit was never contemplated under the Scheme. In other words, the petitioners cannot trace any right to re-employment to Ext.P3 Scheme pursuant to which their services were terminated. I note, however, that the petitioners had approached the 3^rd respondent company to consider their claim for re-employment taking note of the fact that they were erstwhile employees of the 3^rd respondent company. This is a matter that will have to be considered by the 3^rd respondent company in its discretion. Thus, while dismissing the writ petition, I make it clear that, nothing in this judgment will stand in the way of the petitioners approaching the 3^rd respondent with a request for reemployment, and the 3^rd respondent company considering the same, in accordance with law.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶36

mns/09.06.16

¶37

W.P.(C). No.12557 of 2008

¶38

-4-

K.Mohanakumar v. Government of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Mohanakumar v. Government of Kerala

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

Shejith.a.J. Vs Union of India

Dr.B.Jayaprakashini Vs State of Kerala

M.G.Sivaraman Vs Kothamangalam Municipality

George Vs Beena Benny

Santhosh P Antony Vs the State of Kerala

Lee Builders Vs State of Kerala