Dismissed

The Manager v. General Secretary

Kerala HC21 Feb 2019WP(C)/37943/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenging an Industrial Tribunal award directing reinstatement without backwages was dismissed because the workman had given a written undertaking not to take employment, his wife was given permanent employment, and he accepted full gratuity. The court closed the petition as the claim for reinstatement no longer survived.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was closed as the workman's claim for reinstatement no longer survived after his written undertaking to forgo employment.

The Manager Vs General Secretary — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

WP(C).No. 37943 of 2015 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶5

THURSDAY ,THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 2ND PHALGUNA, 1940

¶6

WP(C).No. 37943 of 2015

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

THE MANAGER AGED 40 YEARS

¶9

NULLATANNI ESTATE, OWNED BY KDHP COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, MUNNAR - 685 612, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER (IR) MR.PRINCE THOMAS GEORGE.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.D.PREM KAMATH

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 GENERAL SECRETARY DEVIKULAM ESTATES EMPLOYEES UNION (CITU), MUNNAR P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 612.

¶13

2 INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL IDUKKI - 685 531

¶14

BY G.P.SRI.SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 37943 of 2015 2

¶17

V.G.ARUN, J.

¶18

W.P.(C) No.37943 of 2015

¶19

Dated this the 21^st day of February, 2019

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

This Writ Petition is filed by the Management, assailing

¶22

the award of the Industrial Tribunal in I.D 33 of 2010. By the impugned order, the Tribunal had found the dismissal of the workman concerned, Sri.A.Manikandan, to be unjustifiable and had directed the reinstatement of the workman in service with continuity, but without backwages. Even though notice was served on the first respondent Union, which had represented the workman before the Industrial Tribunal, there is no appearance on behalf of the first respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the workman concerned has given up his claim for employment based on the award under challenge. It is submitted that the workman had given a written undertaking stating that he was not interested in taking up employment in the company and that instead his wife may

¶23

be given permanent employment. His further request is

¶24

WP(C).No. 37943 of 2015 3

¶25

that the line unit in his name should be transferred to his wife's name after her registration as permanent worker in the estate. A copy of the written undertaking dated 16.11.2017 submitted by the workman is handed over for perusal.

¶26

From the undertaking it is clear that the petitioner has give up his employment in the company subject to the conditions aforementioned. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, as requested by the workman, his wife Devi was given permanent employment in the estate and the line unit of the workman concerned has been transferred to the name of his wife, after her registration as permanent worker. It is also submitted that the workman concerned has accepted his gratuity in full and final settlement of his claims. In view of the undisputed fact that

¶27

the workman concerned has given up his claim for reinstatement, nothing survives for consideration in this Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE

cms

WP(C).No. 37943 of 2015 4

¶32

APPENDIX

¶33

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶34

EXHIBIT P1 P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD IN ID NO. 33/2010 DT. 13.10.2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS EXTS NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE cms

The Manager v. General Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Manager v. General Secretary

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

Nadiya Vahid Vs the Executive Engineer Kerala State Electricity Board

The Manager, Mitup School Vs the State of Kerala

Smt. R.Kalyanikuttyamma Vs State of Kerala

Thankamani Amma Vs the Managing Director

Kochukunju. M Vs the District Collector

National Confederation of Officers Association Vs the Deputy Secretary to Government