Allowed

P v. Sindhu v the Kerala State Handloom Weavers Co. Op Society Ltd.

Kerala HC25 Jul 2019WP(C)/17155/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order cancelling the petitioner's transfer as a helper in a handloom society, holding that relying solely on co-employee objections without cogent reasons lacked legal support. The court directed the management to issue a fresh order after affording a hearing. The interim order remains in force.

What did the court decide?

The order (Ext.P6) cancelling the petitioner's appointment was set aside. The management is directed to issue a fresh order after affording a hearing to both sides.

P v Sindhu Vs the Kerala State Handloom Weavers Co. Op… — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 3RD SRAVANA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.17155 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

P V SINDHU, AGED 45 YEARS W/O.B.THULASSEEDHARAN NAIR, RESIDING AT MAYOORVILAKATHU VEEDU, ALAPPURAM, ARAT-C14/1, THIRUMALA.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.A.CHANDRA BABU

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE KERALA STATE HANDLOOM WEAVERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD(H.232), P.B.NO.OOTTUKUZHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001

¶11

2 THE PRESIDENT, THE KERALA STATE HANDLOOM WEAVERS COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, (H.232), P.B.NO.OOTTUKUZHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001

¶12

3 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE KERALA STATE HANDLOOM WEAVERS' OP-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD(H.232), P.B.NO.OOTTUKUZHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001

¶13

ADDL. 4 USHAKUMARI T., AGED 52 YEARS, W/O.VIJAYAKUMAR, RESIDING AT THEKKANATH MELE PUTHEN VEEDU, ARUVIKKARA (P.O.), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 564

¶14

5 K.SUDHA, AGED 49 YEARS, W/O.RAVEENDRAN ASARI, RESIDING AT REVATHY BHAVAN, SREE NAGAR, MANIKANTESWARAM, NETTAYAM (P.O.), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 013

¶15

6 GEETHAKUMARI.S., AGED 52 YEARS, W/O.VIJAYAN, RESIDING AT MELEPLATHARATHALA, PERUKAVU (PO), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 573.

¶16

7 PONNAMMA P., AGED 52 YEARS, D/O.KOCHU PARVATHY, RESIDING AT VADAKKETHOPPU, KARAMANA (PO), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 002.

¶17

WP(C).No.17155 of 2019

¶18

¶19

8 SREELATHA D., AGED 49 YEARS, W/O.UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR.B., RESIDING AT MANNARATHALA PUTHEN VEEDU, ATHIYANNOOR, ARALUMMOODU (PO), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695123.

¶20

9 USHA KUMARI.S., AGED 49 YEARS, W/O.BABU, RESIDING AT N.S.BHAVAN, LENIN NAGAR, VAZHUTHACAUD (PO), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 014.

¶21

10 RADHAMONY.B., AGED 45 YEARS, W/O.GIREESH KUMAR, RESIDING AT AVITTAM, KAVALLOOR, VATTIYOORKAVU (PO), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 013.

¶22

11 AMBIKA P., AGED 53 YEARS, W/O.BAHULEYAN, RESIDING AT PRIYA NIVAS, MUKKOLA, NETTAYAM (PO), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 013.

¶23

12 N.JAYAKUMARI, AGED 52 YEARS, W/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, RESIDING AT CHARUVILAKATHU VEEDU, IRUMBA, ARUVIKKARA (PO), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 564.

¶24

13 B.PREMALATHA, AGED 49 YEARS, W/O.V.ANIKUTTAN, RESIDING AT SYMAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, PERUKAVU, PERUKAVU (PO), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 573.

¶25

14 ANITHA.S., AGED 49 YEARS, W/O.SATHISH KUMAR, RESIDING AT KEEZHKADI VEEDU, KALADY, KARAMANA (PO), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 002.

¶26

ADDL.R4 TO R14 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 25.07.2019 IN I.A.1/19.

¶27

BY ADVS. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL SRI.RAHUL RAJ

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

WP(C).No.17155 of 2019

¶30

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

The petitioner, who claims to be suffering from certain physical disabilities, impugns Ext.P6 order, as per which, her transfer as a helper in the “HO Weavery” under the first respondent - Society has been cancelled stating that other employees are opposing it. The petitioner says that through Ext.P3, dated 30.05.2019, the management had transferred her as a helper in the “HO Weavery” but that soon thereafter, Ext.P6 was issued merely stating that such appointment is being opposed by other employees. She says that there is no such objection from any other employees but that a certain Union has done so for political reasons. She, therefore, prays that Ext.P6 be set aside.

¶33

2. Sri.N.Reghu Raj, the learned standing counsel for the first respondent, submits that the management of the society had taken note of Ext.P2 certificate of disability and had accommodated the petitioner in the “HO Weavery” as a helper through Ext.P3. He says, however, that since many other employees objected to this, they had no other option but to issue Ext.P6. He says that the management is willing to abide by any orders that may be issued by this Court in this regard.

¶34

3. Sri.T.R.Gopakumar, learned counsel appearing for the

¶35

WP(C).No.17155 of 2019

¶36

¶37

additional respondents submitted that the reason why the other employees are objecting to the petitioner's appointment as per Ext.P3 is because she is much junior to them and that if she is allowed to work as a helper in the “HO Weavery”, she obtains an opportunity of supervising the work of other weaving staff, including his clients, who are all seniors to her. He also says that there is no such post as shown in Ext.P3 to accommodate the petitioner and that she has been appointed in a non-existing post, so as to enable her to obtain a monthly salary without doing any work, while his clients, are still obtaining only daily wages. He says that it is in such circumstances that they objected to Ext.P3.

¶38

4. Even when I hear the learned counsel for the additional respondents in the afore lines, there is no doubt that Ext.P6 says that Ext.P3 has been cancelled merely on account of the objections of the co-employees. The order does not say any cogent reason as to why such a decision had been taken and I, therefore, cannot find favour with the same. If there are valid reasons that can persuade the management of the society to cancel Ext.P3, they are certainly at liberty to do so; however, to merely say that the transfer of the petitioner through Ext.P3 has been objected to by other workers and therefore, that this being

¶39

WP(C).No.17155 of 2019

¶40

¶41

cancelled is certainly without legal support. I, consequently, am certain that I cannot offer imprimatur to Ext.P6 and that the said order must fail.

¶42

In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition and set aside Ext.P6; however, leaving full liberty to the management of the first respondent - society to decide on the objections of the additional respondents, after offering them as well as the petitioner an opportunity of being heard; and then issue a fresh order with regard to the transfer of the petitioner.

¶43

The afore exercise shall be completed by the management of the first respondent - society only after following due procedure and after making sure that all sides get reasonable opportunity to present their version; but until further orders are so issued, the interim order of this Court dated 28.06.2019 will continue to be in force.

¶44

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶45

Stu

¶46

JUDGE

¶47

WP(C).No.17155 of 2019

¶48

¶49

APPENDIX

¶50

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶51

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE NIIMS HOSPITAL,	DISCHARGE SUMMARY ISSUED BY THE NEYYATTINKARA.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE BOARD CERTIFICAT	STANDING DISABILITY ASSESSMENT E
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 30.05.2019	ORDER NO.A3/986/HO. HANTEX /19, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE	RELIVING ORDER, DATED 04.06.2019
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE	REPRESENTATION
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 20.06.2019	ORDER NO.A3/986/HO HANTEX/19, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶52

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

¶53

//TRUE COPY//

¶54

P.A TO JUDGE.

P v. Sindhu v the Kerala State Handloom Weavers Co. Op Society Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P v. Sindhu v the Kerala State Handloom Weavers Co. Op Society 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

V.M.Johny Vs State of Kerala

The Kerala State Co-Operative Agricultural Vs State of Kerala

K.Sivankutty Vs the State of Kerala

Canara Bank, Vs K.Venugopalan Nair

Navami Exports Vs the State of Kerala

Komalakumari.S Vs the Karamana Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd.