Dismissed

N.P.George v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Nov 2016WP(C)/13621/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an Industrial Tribunal award regarding promotion. It held that findings of fact by the Tribunal cannot be interfered with under Article 226 and that the petitioner, seeking an Electrical post, was not aggrieved by the promotion of a Mechanical Deputy Manager.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as the petitioner was not aggrieved by the promotion of the Mechanical Deputy Manager and the Tribunal's findings of fact are binding.

N.P.George Vs State of Kerala — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/25TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 13621 of 2013 (C)

¶6

ID. NO.3/2012 OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM.

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

N.P. GEORGE, NADUVELIPARAMBIL, PALIYAKARA, NEAR MARKET JUNCTION, THIRUVALLA, (SUPERVISOR, ELECTRICAL SECTION, TRAVANCORE SUGARS AND CHEMICALS LTD., THIRUVALLA).

¶9

BY ADVS.SMT.INDU SUSAN JACOB, SRI.LIJU.V.STEPHEN.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶12

2. THE TRAVANCORE SUGARS AND CHEMICALS LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVALLA-689 104.

¶13

3. THE CHAIRMAN, TRAVANCORE SUGARS AND CHEMICALS LTD., THIRUVALLA-689 104.

¶14

4. P.M. JOHN, DEPUTY MANAGER (MECHANIC), TRAVANCORE SUGARS AND CHEMICALS LTD., RESIDING AT PULLOCHERIL, PUTHENVEEDU, VALANJAVATTOM P.O., THIRUVALLA-689 104.

¶15

5. P.V. JOSHUA, S/O P.I. VARGHESE, ELECTRICAL SUPERVISOR, THE TRAVANCORE SUGARS & CHEMICALS LTD., VALANJAVATTOM P.O., THIRUVALLA-689 104, RESIDING AT MAMMOOTTIL HOUSE, THIRUVANVANDOOR P.O., THIRUVALLA-9.

¶16

WP(C).No. 13621 of 2013 (C)

¶17

***** ADDL. R6 IMPLEADED

¶18

6. GENERAL SECRETARY, T.S.C EMPLOYEES, TRAVANCORE SUGARS AND CHEMICALS LTD., VALANJAVATTOM PO., THIRUVALLA - 689 104.

¶19

IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R6 AS PER ORDER DATED 11/03/2015 IN I.A. NO.3443/2015.

¶20

R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN. R2 & R3 BY ADVS. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SRI.P.GOPINATH, SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI, SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS. R4 & R5 BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW, SRI.ARUN THOMAS, SRI.JENNIS STEPHEN. ADDL. R6 BY ADV. SRI.N.ASHOK KUMAR.

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

rs.

¶23

WP(C).No. 13621 of 2013 (C)

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶26

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE DIPLOMA CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE STATE BOARD OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION.

¶27

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.GO(RT) NO.2135/92/LBR DATED 14TH SEPTEMBER 1992.

¶28

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE K.V.THOMAS COMMISSION REPORT DATED 05.06.2012.

¶29

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 01.02.2013 IN I.D.NO.3/2012 OF INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM.

¶30

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF OFFICE ORDER DATED 14.03.2013 PURSUANT TO EXT.P4 ORDER BY WHICH THE 4TH RESPONDENT IS PROMOTED AS DEPUTY MANAGER (MECHANICAL).

¶31

EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.10.2012 IN WP(C).NO.24710 OF 2012 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶32

EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.(RT)NO.297/2013/TD DATED 06.04.2013.

¶33

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DATED 10/07/2013.

¶34

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20/08/2013.

¶35

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-

¶36

EXT.R6A COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 19/08/2013 ISSUED BY TRAVANCORE SUGARS AND CHEMICALS LTD. TO THE PETITIONER.

¶37

EXT.R6B COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER DATED 22/09/2014 ISSUED BY TRAVANCORE SUGARS AND CHEMICALS LTD. TO THE PETITIONER.

¶38

EXT.R6C COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 09/10/2014 ISSUED BY TRAVANCORE SUGARS AND CHEMICALS LTD. TO THE PETITIONER.

¶39

EXT.R6D COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 22/01/2015 ISSUED BY TRAVANCORE SUGARS AND CHEMICALS LTD. TO THE PETITIONER.

¶40

EXT.R6E COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 16/04/2015 ISSUED BY TRAVANCORE SUGARS AND CHEMICALS LTD. TO THE PETITIONER.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶45

----------------------------------------------W.P(C).No.13621 of 2013

¶46

----------------------------------------------Dated this the 16^th November, 2016

¶47

JUDGMENT

¶48

The challenge in this writ petition is against Exhibit P4 award of the Industrial Tribunal. The dispute raised by the trade union was referred for adjudication to the Tribunal by the Government by order dated 22.12.2009, which reads as follows:

¶49

“Whether the demand of the Union to grant promotion to Mr.P.M.John, Mechanical Supervisor to the cadre of Deputy Manager (Mechanical) is justifiable or not? If justified, the relief that he is entitled to get?”

¶50

It is contended that the writ petitioner was appointed as a worker in the 2^nd respondent Company. He was working as Supervisor (Electrical) from 2006 onwards. It is contended that he had acquired Diploma in Electrical Engineering in 1994. He claims that a Commission had been appointed by the Government to study the conditions of service of employees of the 2^nd respondent Company and the Commissioner had filed Exhibit P3 report. The said report was not approved by the Government at the relevant time. It is contended that relying on Exhibit P3 report, the Industrial Tribunal had passed orders accepting the terms contained in the report which, according to the Tribunal, had been approved by the Company and had directed the promotion of the 4^th respondent in the writ petition as Deputy Manager

¶51

WP(C).13621/13

¶52

¶53

(Mechanical). The petitioner contends that the said award is unsustainable, since the Government had not considered the report and approved the same. It is further contended that from 1997, the petitioner had been managing the work of Engineer in the Company, and he was eligible for appointment as Deputy Manager in preference to the 4^th respondent. It is submitted that the 4^th respondent is only an ITI certificate holder and can have no claim.

¶54

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader appearing for the 1^st respondent, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2, 3 and 4, learned counsel appearing for the 5^th respondent, and the learned counsel appearing for the additional 6^th respondent.

¶55

I have considered the contentions advanced on either side. The post to which the 4^th respondent was directed to be promoted was the post of Deputy Manager (Mechanical). Even on his own showing, the petitioner was appointed as Electrician. Exhibit P1 is his diploma in Electrical Engineering. His claim would therefore only be for appointment to the post of Deputy Manager (Electrical). The petitioner, therefore, cannot be said to be aggrieved by Exhibit P4 award which directs the promotion of the 4^th respondent as Deputy Manager (Mechanical). For the same reason, the challenge against Exhibit P5 order of promotion also fails. Further, the findings in Exhibit P4 award

¶56

¶57

WP(C).13621/13

¶58

on questions of fact are being challenged in this writ petition. I am of the view that the power of this Court to interfere with findings of fact made by the Industrial Tribunal is extremely limited. Exhibit P4 award of the Industrial Tribunal is not liable to be interfered with in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I have already directed the consideration of the claim of promotion for the post of Deputy Manager (Electrical) by judgment in W.P(C).No.7987 of 2014. Therefore, this writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶59

ANU SIVARAMAN

¶60

JUDGE

¶61

vgs16/11

N.P.George v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.P.George v. State of Kerala

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

Babu.M. Vs State of Kerala

Sreejith Maroli Vs State of Kerala

Kamco Officers Association Vs State of Kerala

P.B.Ambujakshy Vs N.S.Sudharoopan.

N.P.George Vs State of Kerala

P.L.Sabu Vs the Director