Disposed

Varghese Oommen v. the State Trading Corporation of India Ltd.

Kerala HC10 Dec 2018WP(C)/23585/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment disposes of a writ petition filed by State Trading Corporation employees demanding retention in Cochin. The Court ordered the petitioners to submit their options for deployment to other branches, with the management to consider cases sympathetically thereafter.

What did the court decide?

Disposed; petitioners directed to submit options for deployment; management to consider cases sympathetically.

Varghese Oommen Vs the State Trading… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶4

MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 23585 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 VARGHESE OOMMEN,SENIOR OFFICE MANAGER-11 STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD 4TH FLOOR, K.S.H.B OFFICE COMPLEX PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN-PIN-682036.

¶8

2 P.KARUPPAN, DRIVER, STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, 4TH FLOOR, K.S.H.B OFFICE COMPLEX, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN-PIN-682036.

¶9

3 T.K. RAJAN, JUNIOR ASSISTANT, STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, 4TH FLOOR, K.S.H.B OFFICE COMPLEX, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN-PIN682036.

¶10

4 RAGINI SATHEESAN,PEON (GRADE-1), STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, 4TH FLOOR, K.S.H.B OFFICE COMPLEX, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN-PIN-682036.

¶11

5 C. PUSHPA,PEON(GRADE-1), STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, 4TH FLOOR, K.S.H.B OFFICE COMPLEX, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN-PIN682036.

¶12

6 BIJU JOSEPH. T JUNIOR ASSISTANT, STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, 4TH FLOOR, K.S.H.B OFFICE COMPLEX, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN-PIN-682036.

¶13

7 A.J. ABRAHAM SENIOR OFFICE MANAGER-11, STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, 4TH FLOOR, K.S.H.B OFFICE COMPLEX, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN-PIN682036.

¶14

BY ADVS. SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR SRI.ADITHYA RAJEEV SRI.ARJUN RAGHAVAN SRI.JAIBY PAUL

¶15

RESPONDENT:

¶16

WP(C).No. 23585 of 2018

¶17

¶18

1 THE STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,JAWAHAR VYAPAR BHAWAN VYPAR BHAWAN, TOLSTOY MARG, NEW DELHI-PIN-110001.

¶19

2 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, UDYOG BHAVAN, RAFI AHMED KIDWAI MARG,RAJPATH AREA, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI-PIN-110107.

¶20

BY ADVS. SMT.O.M.SHALINA, CGC DR.CHANDY JOSEPH

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

WP(C).No. 23585 of 2018

¶23

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

The petitioners are the employees of the 1^st respondent Corporation working in Cochin. For various reasons, the Corporation has scaled down its operations in Cochin branch and wanted to deploy the surplus staff elsewhere. In that context, the petitioners have filed the Writ Petition insisting that they should be retained in Cochin.

¶26

On an earlier occasion, the Standing Counsel for the Corporation has informed the Court that the management has asked the petitioners to give their options for their deployment in other branches —either in Chennai or in Bangalore—as per the Corporation's administrative convenience. The management has also assured the petitioner employees that as it proposes to retain the skeletal staff in Cochin, the most deserving employees could be retained here. But before that exercise could take place, the petitioners must give their options.

¶27

In that back drop, this Court, on 25.10.2018, allowed the management to go ahead with its securing options from the petitioners. The

¶28

Court has also observed that if any of the petitioners could not be accommodated as part of the skeletal staff in the present working place, the

¶29

WP(C).No. 23585 of 2018

¶30

¶31

authorities will give them breathing time to join at the new place.

¶32

Now both the counsel propose that this Court may dispose of the

¶33

writ petition holding that the petitioners must submit their options and, once they submit their options, the management will consider their cases sympathetically.

¶34

I, accordingly, dispose of the writ petition.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE

¶37

WP(C).No. 23585 of 2018

¶38

¶39

APPENDIX

¶40

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶41

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION NO.STC/MSD/CP/01078/2017 DATED 17/4/2018, ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BEFORE THE FEDERATION STC EMPLOYEES UNIONS DATED 18/4/2018.
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.STC/MSD/01078/2017 DATED 28/6/2018, ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29.06.2018 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONERS 2 TO 5 AND ANOTHER
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PROMOTION POLICY FOR THE STAFF OF THE STC.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS
NIL
// TRUE COPY // SD	P.A. TO JUDGE

Varghese Oommen v. the State Trading Corporation of India Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Varghese Oommen v. the State Trading Corporation of India 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

Benny P.P. Vs the Commercial Tax Officer-Ii

State Bank Institute of Learning Vs the Tahsildar, Kochi

Jessy Roy Vs Union of India

Pradeepkumar Vs District Labour Officer, Kollam

Jamaludheen Farooque Vs Employees Provident Fund Organization

Jamaludheen Farooque Vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation