Disposed

Tresa Jacob v. the Regional Manager, Hantex

Kerala HC22 Feb 2018WP(C)/1088/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a saleswoman facing transfer, filed a writ petition to quash orders directing her relocation. The Court allowed adjournment for a counter affidavit and subsequently directed the employer to consider the petitioner s representation with medical records for reconsideration of the transfer order within a month.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit representation with medical records; managing director directed to consider representation with hearing and pass orders within one month.

Tresa Jacob Vs the Regional Manager, Hantex — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 3RD PHALGUNA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 1088 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

TRESA JACOB, AGED 39, ONTHIRICKAL HOUSE, PALLIPURAM P.O., CHERTHALA.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR SRI.R.RANJITH SMT.SMITHA PHILIPOSE SRI.P.R.JAYASANKAR SRI.N.BIJA KRISHNA

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE REGIONAL MANAGER,

¶11

HANTEX (KERALA STATE HANDLOOM WEAVERS CO-OPERATIVE

¶12

SOCIETY LTD. H 232), HANTEX BUILDING, BOAT JETTY,

¶13

ERNAKULAM - 682 011.

¶14

2. THE KERALA STATE HANDLOOM WEAVERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY

¶15

LIMITED, REGISTER NO: H 232, POST BOX NO.64,

¶16

OOTTUKUZHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001,

¶17

REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶18

3. THE PRESIDENT,

¶19

HANTEX (KERALA STATE HANDLOOM WEAVERS CO-OPERATIVE

¶20

SOCIETY LTD. H 232), POST BOX NO.64,

¶21

OOTTUKUZHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶22

4. THE DIRECTOR OF HANDLOOMS AND TEXTILES, DIRECTORATE OF HANDLOOMS AND TEXTILES,

¶23

VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033.

¶24

5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT,

¶25

SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶26

R5 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT C.S.SHEEJA

¶27

R BY SRI.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA, SC

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION

¶29

ON 22-02-2018,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

PBS

¶31

WP(C).No. 1088 of 2018 (I)

¶32

APPENDIX

¶33

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶34

EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE MRI REPORT (SPINE) ISSUED FROM DIAGNOSTIC AND RESEARCH CENTRE, INDO AMERICAN HOSPITAL, VAIKOM DATED 12.11.2015. EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO ISSUED BY REGIONAL MANAGER, HANTEX DATED 27.11.2017. EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO:A2/46/H.O. HANTEX/2016 DATED 21.12.2017. EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE RELIEVING LETTER DATED 21.12.2017 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 28.11.2017. EXHIBIT P6. TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 01.01.2018 ISSUED BY MEDICAL OFFICER, COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE, THYCATTUSERRY.

¶35

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL

¶36

/TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE

¶37

PBS 24/2/2018

¶38

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, J.

¶39

----------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.1088 of 2018

¶40

Dated this the 22^nd day of February, 2018

¶41

J U D G M E N T

¶42

The petitioner was working as Sales Woman at the HANTEX show room, Ernakulam and was later transferred to the Regional Office, Ernakulam, on other duty. By Ext.P3 order dated 21.12.2017, she was ordered to be transferred to the HANTEX show room, Harippad. Based on Ext.P3 order of transfer, she was relieved from duty by Ext.P4 order. The petitioner filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Exts.P3 and P4 orders, whereby the petitioner was ordered to be transferred to the HANTEX shop room, Harippad.

¶43

On 11.1.2018, when this writ petition came up for admission, it was submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent, representing respondents 1 to 3, that in terms of Ext.P3 order dated 21.12.2017, the petitioner has already relieved from the Regional Office, Ernakulam, on the very same day at 1.30 p.m. The said submission was recorded.

¶44

W.P.(C)No.1088 of 2018

¶45

:-2-:

¶46

The learned Standing Counsel sought time to file counter affidavit and accordingly one week's time was granted.

¶47

Today, when the case is taken up for further consideration, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner shall submit a representation before the Managing Director of the 2^nd respondent along with medical certificates seeking re-consideration of Ext.P3 order of transfer and the said respondent may be directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on that representation within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.

¶48

The learned Standing Counsel for HANTEX, representing respondents 1 to 3, would submit that if such a representation is made by the petitioner, the Managing Director of the 2^nd respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon with notice to the petitioner.

¶49

In such circumstances, leaving open the legal and factual contentions raised by the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions ;

¶50

(i) Within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, the petitioner shall submit a

¶51

W.P.(C)No.1088 of 2018

¶52

:-3-:

¶53

representation before the Managing Director of the 2^nd respondent seeking re-consideration of Ext.P3 order of transfer, along with supporting medical records.

¶54

(ii) If such a representation is received, the Managing Director of the 2^nd respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, strictly in accordance with law, with notice to the petitioner and after affording her an opportunity of being heard.

¶55

(iii) Necessary orders in this regard shall be passed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of such representation, along with certified copy of this judgment.

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE

¶58

ami/22.2.18

¶59

//True copy//

¶60

P.A.to Judge

Tresa Jacob v. the Regional Manager, Hantex

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tresa Jacob v. the Regional Manager, Hantex

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.N.Ramanadhan Vs Thottippal Service Co-Operative Society Limited No. 634

Iqbal Vs Thrissur Serivce Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Aisha Suresh Vs the Ernakulam District Co-Operative Bank

Rayankutty Vs the Sale Officer

Sudhakaran Nair.S Vs Fact (Cd) Employees Co-Operative Consumer Store Ltd. E-285

Sankaranarayanan Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies