This appeal challenges the dismissal of a writ petition challenging the termination of an employment contract by one month's notice. The Court held that the contract override bye-law 3.3.3.1 and found no merit in the appeal, dismissing the writ petition.
Writ appeal dismissed; termination order upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI
TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 19TH POUSHA, 1939
WA.No. 431 of 2015
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 18342/2014 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 11-12-2014
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
K.V RAJENDRAN GENERAL MANAGER (TECHNICAL), PARK CENTRE, TECHNOPARK CAMPUS, TRIVANDRUM-695 581 RESIDING AT AKKALATH, 104 DARSAN NAGAR, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.RAVINDRAN (SR.) SRI.M.R.SABU
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
R2 & 5 BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR (SR.) R2 & 5 BY ADV. SMT.K.V.RESHMI R3-R4 BY ADV. SMT.K.V.RASHMI, SC, TECHNOPARK BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-01-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
P.N.RAVINDRAN
&
R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No.431 of 2015
Dated this the 6th day of January, 2018
JUDGMENT
P.N.Ravindran,J
The appellant is the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.18342 of 2014. He was appointed as General Manager (Technical) on contract basis for a period of five years at Techno Park, Thiruvananthapuram pursuant to the interview held on 20-042007. The letter of appointment is on record as Ext.P1 and it bears the date 18-07-2007. The term of appointment was for a period of five years. It was, however, stated in the offer letter that during the contract period, the service of the appellant can be terminated by giving one month's notice in writing or on payment of one month's salary in lieu of notice.
W.A.No.431/2015
2
without break as per Ext.P2 letter dated 07-09-2012. Such extension was on the terms and conditions stipulated in Ext.P1. The appellant was thereafter granted an additional increment with effect from 01-07-2012. Ext.P3 letter dated 23-01-2013 discloses the said fact.
W.A.No.431/2015
3
99th meeting of Technopark Project implementation Board, wherein there is specific reference to the level of performance of the appellant. Thereupon, the appellant filed an application to amend the writ petition by incorporating a challenge to the said minutes as well. That application was allowed, the amendment was carried out and a copy of the amended writ petition was also filed. After considering the rival contentions, the learned single Judge repelled the contention of the petitioner that the order of termination is punitive in nature. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed. Hence this appeal.
W.A.No.431/2015
4
with. Learned counsel also contended that the stipulation in byelaw 3.3.3.1 would not empower the respondents to dispense with the term of the notice and stipulate in the offer of appointment that the service shall be terminable by giving notice of one month or one month's salary in lieu of notice. Learned counsel contended that the words “subject to any contract” under bye-law 3.3.3.1 cannot be invoked to reduce the term of the notice and that such freedom is only as regards the period of service which need not necessarily be five years but can be for a lesser term.
Bye law 3.3.3.1 reads as under:
3.3.3.1 “ Subject to any contract under bye-law 3.3.1, the agreement of service of any member of the technical staff shall be terminated by either party giving to the other not less than three months notice in writing except during the period of probation when the period of notice shall be as specified in the letter of appointment.”
On a plain reading of the aforesaid stipulation, it is evident that the stipulation therein regarding the notice period is not mandatory. Otherwise the words 'subject to any contract' would be redundant. Therefore, on the terms of the aforesaid bye-law which is relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, it cannot be said that the stipulation regarding the period of notice
W.A.No.431/2015
5
in Ext.P1 is bad and consequently Ext.P7 is liable to be invalidated. It is evident from Bye law 3.3.3.1 that the parties are free to limit the period of notice to one month. If the appellant was not agreeable to the stipulation in Ext.P1 regarding the term of notice, he could have declined to accept the offer of appointment. Instead, he accepted Ext.P1 and took charge and functioned as General Manager (Technical) from 07-09-2007 to 06-09-2012. His contract was renewed by Ext.P2 on the same terms and conditions. Then also, he did not demur. Such being the situation, we are of the opinion that no exception can be taken to the stipulation in Ext.P1 that the contract can be terminated by giving one month's notice in writing or on payment of one month's salary in lieu of notice.
In such circumstances, we find no reason or justification to interfere with the impugned judgment. The writ appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
jsr
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the one-month notice period stipulated in the appointment contract is outweighed by the rule requiring three months' notice under Electronic Technology Parks -- Kerala rules.
Whether the termination of the contract by one month's notice or salary in lieu is arbitrary and violative of Article 14.
Whether the High Court below was right in dismissing the writ petition challenging the termination.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K.V Rajendran
State of Kerala
Technopark
The Governing Council Technopark
Chairman The Governing Council Technopark
The Chief Executive Officer Technopark
P.N. Ravindran
R. Narayana Pisharadi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
