Allowed

M.B.Prakash v. Kerala Garments Ltd.

Kerala HC8 Jun 2016WP(C)/6837/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala held that a voluntary retiree is entitled to full arrears of salary and leave salary. The court directed the respondents to pay these dues within one month, noting that similar benefits were already granted to others who retired under the same scheme.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents to disburse the arrears of salary and leave salary due to the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment.

M.B.Prakash Vs Kerala Garments Ltd. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/18TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 6837 of 2011 (D)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

M.B.PRAKASH, 'ANAGHA', PANERIMUKKU, POOTHAPARA ROAD, VALAPATTANAM P.O., KANNUR-10.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) SRI.ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. KERALA GARMENTS LTD., REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER, REGD OFFICE AT PM-32/249, THILLERI ROAD, KANNUR- 670 001.

¶11

2. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM-695 001.

¶12

R1 BY SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR,SENIOR ADVOCATE ADVS. SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JIBU P. THOMAS

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

sts

¶15

WP(C).NO.6837/2011

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶18

P1 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.G.O.(RT) NO.141/2007/ID TRIVANDRUM DATED 01/2/07 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT

¶19

P2 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.G.O.(P) 73/03/ID DATED 24/6/03 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT

¶20

P3 COPY OF THE SPECIMEN OF THE APPLICATION FOR VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT

¶21

P4 COPY OF THE REQUEST MADE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 8/12/2007

¶22

P5 COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 2/6/08

¶23

P6 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 2/09/2008

¶24

P7 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO.809/2009 DATED 22/3/2010 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT

¶25

P8 COPY OF THE REQUEST MADE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 03/01/2011

¶26

P9 COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 12/01/2011

¶27

P10 COPY OF THE REPLY RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DATED 15/11/2001

¶28

P11 COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 10/1/2007 TO THE GENERAL MANAGER, KERALA GARMENTS

¶29

P12 COPY OF THE ORDER IN CP 15/2011, 16/2011,21/2001, 22/2011, 24/2011 & 32/2011 PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, KANNUR

¶30

P13 COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY KERALA STATE HANVEEV DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD DATED 14/10/2014

¶31

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶32

R2(A) COPY OF THE G.O(RT) 152/2005/ID DATED 24/11/05

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

P.V.ASHA J.

--------------------------------------------------

¶38

W.P.(C) No.6837 of 2011

¶39

--------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8^th day of June, 2016

¶40

J U D G M E N T

¶41

The petitioner voluntarily retired from Kerala Garments Ltd., while working as Production Manager and was relieved from service on 09.01.2007. His grievance is that amounts due to him towards arrears of salary, eligible leave salary, notice pay, increment arrears, bonus etc., are not paid to him.

¶42

The respondents have filed a counter affidavit stating that as per the Scheme under which petitioner applied for and was relieved on voluntary retirement, there was no provision for payment of entire arrears of salary. The petitioner had filed the writ petition relying on the judgment in W.A.No.809 of 2009, in which this Court held that denial of arrears of salary to those who voluntarily retired from service was not proper, in the absence of any such provision in the scheme. Respondents stated that the issue therein related to

¶43

W.P.(C) No.6837 of 2011

¶44

¶45

employees who were relieved on VRS in April, 2004, based on 2003 scheme and it was not applicable to the petitioner who was relieved in the year 2007, based on a subsequent scheme, according to which arrears of pay was limited to 50%. Subsequently, the petitioners produced Ext.P12 order of the Labour Court, Kannur in Claim Petition No.15/2011 and connected cases in which similarly situated persons were directed to be paid all the benefits. It is also stated that the said order is implemented.

¶46

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that those employees were paid only leave salary and arrears of salary after deducting Provident Fund and that no other benefits were granted to them.

¶47

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶48

Having considered the contentions on either side, I find that denial of arrears of salary and eligible leave salary due to the petitioner, on the ground that he retired from service in the year 2007 on the basis of a different scheme for voluntary retirement is not proper,

¶49

W.P.(C) No.6837 of 2011

¶50

¶51

when such benefits are already granted in the case of others who retired under the same scheme on the basis of Ext.P12 order. Petitioner would therefore be entitled to the arrears of salary in full which is due to him for the work done by him.

¶52

Accordingly, there shall be a direction to the respondents to disburse the arrears of salary as well as the leave salary due to the petitioner within a period of 'one month' from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment.

¶53

This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶54

Sd/- P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.

¶55

AS/09/06/16

M.B.Prakash v. Kerala Garments Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.B.Prakash v. Kerala Garments Ltd.

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

Fr.Jolly Thappalodath Vs the Mookkannur Grama Panchayath

E.a.Sugatha Kumar Vs the State of Kerala

~.G.Mohanakumar Vs Sasthamcotta Co-Operative Agricultural

V.P.Ranjini Vs State of Kerala

N.P.Madhusoodhanan and Others Vs the Chairman and Managing Director, Fact

P.Gangadharan Vs Kerala Water Authority