Disposed

T.C.Joshy v. Indian Aluminium Company Ltd.

Kerala HC27 May 2016WP(C)/2541/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a Labour Court award. The High Court declined setting aside the award but directed the respondent employer to consider and disburse due monetary benefits within four weeks of application receipt and two weeks after calculation.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent to consider and disburse monetary benefits due to the petitioner within four weeks of application receipt.

T.C.Joshy Vs Indian Aluminium Company Ltd. — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2016/6TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 2541 of 2009 (C)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

T.C. JOSHY, KALLUVEETTIL HOUSE PACHALAM, KOCHI-23.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.C.P. RAVIKUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENT :

¶10

INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD., ALUPURAM, POST BOX NO.30,, KALAMASSERY REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶11

BY SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI BY ADV. SRI.SAJI VARGHESE, SC

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

¶14

...2/-

¶15

WP(C).No. 2541 of 2009 (C)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

¶18

EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF DISMISSAL ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 10.12.2002.

¶19

EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER DT. 24.11.03.

¶20

EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION IN THE KERALA GAZETTE DATED 14.6.05.

¶21

EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM IN I.D. NO. 11/05 DATED 26.8.08.

¶22

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶27

----------------------------------------------W.P(C).No. 2541 of 2009

¶28

----------------------------------------------Dated this the 27^th May, 2016

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

The challenge in this writ petition is against Exhibit P4 award passed by the Labour Court. The petitioner had been dismissed for unauthorised absence. He had raised a dispute which was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court. Thereafter, the Labour Court, after considering the contentions raised by the petitioner that his father was a cancer patient and he remained absent due to the illness of his father, by the impugned award converted the punishment of dismissal into an order of discharge.

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent.

¶32

After considering the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner, I do not find, this is a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction to set aside Exhibit P4 award. However, it is submitted that the amounts due to the petitioner in terms of Exhibit P4 award should be disbursed to him at the earliest. The learned standing counsel for the respondent submits that if applications are filed before the respondent in that behalf, amounts shall be calculated and disbursed to the petitioner without delay.

¶33

¶34

WP(C).2541/09

¶35

The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of directing that in case the petitioner makes application for due monetary benefits before the respondent, the same shall be considered and disposed of by the respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the application. All amounts due shall be disbursed to the petitioner within two weeks thereafter.

¶36

ANU SIVARAMAN

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

vgs27/5

T.C.Joshy v. Indian Aluminium Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.C.Joshy v. Indian Aluminium Company Ltd.

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.M.Shajahan Vs State of Kerala

Mg.Director, Ktdc Vs M.Krishnankutty Nair

Paulose Abraham Vs Kerala Water Authority

Supriya Rani G. Vs State of Kerala

Kerla Muncipal Corporation Thozhilali We Vs Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram

Quilon Dist.Homeopathic Co-Operative Hos Vs G.Anilkumar