Dismissed

The Managing Director v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Feb 2020WP(C)/3545/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order directing the petitioner to pay subsistence allowance to a suspended workman. The court held that the late registration of a criminal case regarding alleged forgery did not warrant setting aside the valid order passed after adequate opportunity.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed; no costs awarded. The Chairman, Labour Court, Kollam is directed to communicate the award and other relevant documents to the Deputy Labour Officer.

The Managing Director Vs the State of Kerala — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 28TH MAGHA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.3545 OF 2020(P)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, S.P.MULTI SPECIALTY HOSPITAL, PARASSALA, PARASSALA.P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP THROUGH DR.MANU .K.T., ADMINISTRATOR, S.P.MULTI SPECIALTY HOSPITAL, PARASSALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 502

¶8

BY ADVS. SMT.MINI GANGADHARAN SRI.N.C.SAJUNAM

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REP BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LABOUR DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT COMPLEX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

¶11

2 DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, STATE ADVISORY CONTRACT LABOUR BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

¶12

3 DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICR, DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 010

¶13

4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKKUNNU, TRIVANDRUM-695 034

¶14

5 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, REVENUE RECOVERY, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK-691 121

¶15

6 SHEEBA.P., AGED 35 YEARS, PANDIMAAMOODU, KUDAYAL, KUDAYAL P.O., VELLARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 049

¶16

SRI. RON BASTIAN, GP

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No.3545 OF 2020 2

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The petitioner is the Managing Director of the S.P. Multi Speciality Hospital, Parassala. Under challenge in this petition is Exhibit P1 order passed by the Deputy Labour Officer, Thiruvananthapuram directing the petitioner to pay the 6^th respondent a sum of Rs.1,98,753/- towards subsistence allowance under section 4 of the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1972 ( “Act 27 of 1973” for short).

¶21

Facts germane to the filing of the present petition lie in a narrow compass :-

¶22

The 6^th respondent was employed as a cleaner in the hospital run by the petitioner. Alleging that she had unauthorizedly remained absent and failed to discharge her duty as a cleaner, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against her. She was suspended from service on 12.3.2013. The 6^th respondent raised an industrial dispute and the appropriate government was pleased to refer the dispute to the Labour Court, Kollam to decide the question as to whether the denial of employment to the 6^th respondent by the petitioner herein was justified. While the said proceedings were

¶23

WP(C).No.3545 OF 2020 3

¶24

pending, the 6^th respondent filed an application under Act 27 of 1973 seeking subsistence allowance. The petitioner entered appearance on receipt of summons. The 6^th respondent produced the show cause notice issued to her from the management and also the suspension order to substantiate her contentions. After affording adequate opportunities to the petitioner to contest the proceedings, Exhibit P1 order dated 18.12.2017 was passed directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,98,753/- to the 6^th respondent. Since the petitioner did not comply with the order, the 6^th respondent approached the 2^nd respondent for enabling her to recover the amount. On 27.3.2018 a notice was issued to the petitioner by the 2^nd respondent calling upon him to honor the award. Since no payment was made, Exhibit P2 show cause notice was issued intimating the petitioner to show cause why revenue Recovery proceedings shall not be initiated against him for realizing the amount. Thereafter, on 14.6.2018, a complaint was lodged by the petitioner before the Station House Officer, Parassala Police Station that the show cause notice as well as the suspension order produced by the 6^th respondent before the Deputy Labour officer are fabricated documents which were brought into existence to lodge a false claim. On its basis, Crime No.1099 of 2018 was registered inter alia under Section 408, 420, 468 and 471 of the IPC. In the meantime, the Labour

¶25

WP(C).No.3545 OF 2020 4

¶26

Court, Kollam, passed an award in ID No 75/2014 on 20.12.2018 directing the petitioner to reinstate the 6^th respondent within a period of two months from the date of award and she was also held entitled to attendant benefits and continuity of service, however, with no back wages. When Exhibit P12 notice under Section 36 of the revenue recovery Act was received by the petitioner, he has rushed to this Court with this petition.

¶27

According to the petitioner herein, Ext.P1 order cannot be sustained as the documents based on which relief was obtained are forged documents. It is further contended that the petitioner herein had engaged Sri.D.S.Ajith as their counsel and since the counsel was laid up due to various ailments, the petitioner was not able to defend the cases properly. The learned counsel contends that since a crime has been registered it would be unjust to direct the petitioner to pay the amounts ordered to the 6^th respondent.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader and I have considered the submissions.

¶29

I find that Ext.P1 order was passed by the Deputy Labour Officer on 18.12.2017 by which subsistence allowance was granted to the 6^th respondent who admittedly was an employee in the hospital run by the

¶30

WP(C).No.3545 OF 2020 5

¶31

petitioner. Even before the Deputy Labour officer, the 6^th respondent had produced the show cause notice as well as the suspension order. The complaint alleging that the documents are fabricated was lodged only on 14.06.2018 after receipt of notice from the 2^nd respondent informing that revenue Recovery proceedings would be initiated for realizing the amount. If there was any truth in the allegation that the documents were forged or that it was brought into existence by the 6^th respondent, one would have expected the petitioner to take appropriate steps when the same had come to their notice, the said document having been produced before the Labour Officer by the 6^th respondent. I also find that the Labour Court has passed an award ordering reinstatement of the 6^th respondent, that too by award dated 20.12.2018. Only on receipt of the notice under Section 34 of the revenue Recovery Act in the month of January, 2019 that the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶32

The sequence of events would show that the belated registration of the crime is just a ploy to deny the benefits due to a worker who was suspended from service. The impugned order was passed on 18.12.2017 and as is evident from the order sufficient opportunities were granted to the petitioner to contest the proceedings. It cannot be said that the 3^rd respondent has acted without jurisdiction or in excess of it or that he

¶33

WP(C).No.3545 OF 2020 6

¶34

has acted in violation of principles of natural justice. Nor can it be said that the order suffers any perversity or error of law warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The mere belated

¶35

registration of a crime is no reason to set aside the order as prayed for. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

¶36

This Writ Petition will stand dismissed. No costs.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

sru

¶41

WP(C).No.3545 OF 2020 7

¶42

APPENDIX

¶43

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶44

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT/RECOMMENDATION DATED 18.12.2017 SENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE EFFECT THAT THE 6TH RESPONDENT CAN BE ALLOWED SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE FROM 12.03.2013 THE DATE OF SUSPENSION TO 4.12.2015, THE DATE OF CLAIM PETITION
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DTD 2.07.2018 ISSUED BY R2 COMMUNICATING THE MANAGEMENT/PETITIONER TO INITIATE REVENUE RECOVERY PROCEEDINGS TO REALIZE THE SUM OF RS.2,01,392/- FROM THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 28.02.2013
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF SUSPENSION ORDER DATED 12.03.2013
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF FIR 1099/2018 OF PARASSALA P.S.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DTD 12.07.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER TO STOP WITH THE REVENUE RECOVERY PROCEEDINGS
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BEFORE THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, TRIVANDRUM
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF AWARD DATED 20.12.2018 DIRECTING THE MANAGEMENT TO RE-INSTATE THE 6TH RESPONDENT/WORKMAN INTO SERVICE ALLOWING TO ATTENDANT BENEFITS AND CONTINUITY OF SERVICE
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO ADVOCATE D.S AJITH FROM THE KERALA HIGH COURT ADVOCATES'S ASSOSICATION
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF DISCHARGE SUMMARY DATED

¶45

WP(C).No.3545 OF 2020 8

¶46

28.02.2018 FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF CARDIOLOGY, LISSIE MEDICAL INSTITUTIONS

¶47

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 3.10.2018 ISSUED FROM KIMS HOSPITAL TRIVANDRUM EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 7.10.2019 ATTACHING THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES OF THE MANAGEMENT EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTICE DATED 15.02.2019 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED REPLY DATED 25.02.2019 ADDRESSED TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 20.02.2019 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE REVENUE MINISTER , KERALA SEEKING TO STOP WITH THE REVENUE RECOVERY PROCEEDINGS

¶48

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL

The Managing Director v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director v. the State of Kerala

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

Nisha Josey Vs Secretary

Anilkumar Vs the Station House Officer

Asharaf Vs the Chairperson

Omkary Venkidesh Vs State of Kerala

Sherif P. Vs State of Kerala

Kerala Stae Ex-Services League Vs Union of India