Remanded

M.Sudheesh v. the President Cannanore Co-Op. Hospotal

Kerala HC18 Oct 2016WP(C)/9637/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that petitioners dismissed from cooperative hospital service could claim back wages under Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, directing the authority to decide within four months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to approach authority under Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1969; authority to dispose within four months.

M.Sudheesh Vs the President Cannanore Co-Op. Hospotal — Cooperative Societies | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/26TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 9637 of 2008 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

M.SUDHEESH, S/O. M.KUMARAN, AGED 46 YEARS, NOW WORKING AS CLERK, RESIDING AT MAMBALLY HOUSE, THIRUVANGAD, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶8

K.UMESHAN, S/O.SREEDHARAN, AGED 33 YEARS, WORKING AS NIGHT WATCHMAN , RESIDING AT SHAMINALAYAM, MUZHAPPILANGAD P.O., KANNUR.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.R.SURENDRAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶11

THE PRESIDENT, CANNANORE CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITAL SOCIETY LTD, NO.C-834, KANNUR 670 002.

¶12

LABOUR COURT, KANNUR.

¶13

3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, LABOUR DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN R2 & R3 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.GOPINATHAN

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Msd.

¶17

WP(C).No. 9637 of 2008 (V)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶20

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.12.2006 IN W.P(C).NO. 19762 OF 2006-C OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶21

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 10.05.2007 IN I.D.NO. 30 OF 2000 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR COURT, KANNUR (SECOND RESPONDENT).

¶22

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM PETITION DATED 01.04.2008 FILED BY THE FIRST PETITIONER BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT, KANNUR.

¶23

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 09.04.2008 IN C.P.NO. 6 OF 2008 ISSUED FROM THE LABOUR COURT, KANNUR.

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶30

W.P.(C) No. 9637 of 2008

¶31

Dated this the 18^th day of October, 2016

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

1.The petitioners, who were dismissed from the service of

¶34

the first respondent, have approached this Court challenging Ext.P2 award to the extent it denies back wages and other service benefits to the petitioners for the period, they were kept out of service, even though the Labour Court found that the dismissal was legally unsustainable.

¶35

2.The limited question in this writ petition is regarding

¶36

the denial of back wages to the petitioners for the period, they were kept out of service.

¶37

3.When the matter was taken up for hearing, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the second petitioner is gainfully employed elsewhere, he does not want reinstatement. However, he is entitled for backwages for the period he was kept

¶38

W.P.(C) No. 9637 of 2008

¶39

..2..

¶40

out of service till the award of the Labour Court.

¶41

4.Learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the first petitioner is reinstated in service pursuant to a settlement and in that settlement, he has given up his claim for back wages.

¶42

5.Be that as it may, it has to be noted that the dispute between the petitioners and the management cannot be resolved by the Labour Court in the light of the decision of the Larger Bench of this Court in Chirayinkeehu Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Santhosh [2015 (4) KLT 163]. However, the first respondent has accepted the award and they have not challenged the award of the Labour Court to the extent it holds that the dismissal was legally unsustainable. In that view of the matter, the only issue to be considered is regarding back wages.

¶43

6.This Court is of the view that the petitioners are free to move the authority under Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, claiming back wages and the authority shall consider the same in the light of

¶44

W.P.(C) No. 9637 of 2008

¶45

..3..

¶46

the finding made by the Labour Court regarding the dismissal of the petitioners that the dismissal was legally unsustainable. It is made clear that the award to the extent it holds that the dismissal is legally unsustainable, has not been interfered by this Court and that award has become final.

¶47

7.Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of as follows;

¶48

If the petitioners approach the authority concerned under Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, the same shall be disposed of within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of such claim.

¶49

It is open for the first respondent to contend before the authority that subsequent to the award, the first petitioner has given up his claim for back wages by way of settlement.

¶50

All the issues relating to back wages are left open.

¶51

Sd/- A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE

¶52

bka/-

M.Sudheesh v. the President Cannanore Co-Op. Hospotal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Sudheesh v. the President Cannanore Co-Op. Hospotal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.P Reghu Kumar Vs V.J Shamsudeen

Ambi. T Vs K. Lawrance

Reshina George Vs M.S Jaya

Lonappan Vs Mohanan

G.Sali Vs the Executive Engineer

Sarala Devi Vs Deputy Labour Commissioner