Allowed

M.B. Sivadasan v. the Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd.

Kerala HC6 Jul 2021WP(C)/13310/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge original side writ petition directed the Plantation Corporation to consider the petitioner's representation and dispose of his pending termination appeal by hearing him, mandating fresh notice and completion within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider Ext.P8, consider the appeal after hearing the petitioner, notify a fresh hearing date through post and electronically, and complete procedure within three months.

M.B. Sivadasan Vs the Plantation Corporation… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 6^TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 13310 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER :-

¶7

M.B.SIVADASAN, S/O.BALAN, MANAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUNNAPPILLY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680 311.

¶8

BY ADVS. DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN N.R.SANGEETHARAJ VINOD S. PILLAI SREELAKSHMI R. MOHAMMED THAYIB N.M.

¶9

RESPONDENTS :-

¶10

1 THE PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD. REGISTERED OFFICE AT KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM P.O., PIN – 686 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶11

2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD., REGISTERED OFFICE AT KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM P.O., PIN – 686 004.

¶12

3 THE MANAGER, THE PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD., ADIRAPPILLY ESTATE, KALADY PLANTATION P.O., ANGAMALY VIA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 683 581.

¶13

BY SRI. N. RAJESH, S.C.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C) NO. 13310 OF 2021

¶16

-: 2 :-

¶17

JUDGMENT Dated the 6th day of July, 2021

¶18

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :-

¶19

“i) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or direction to the 2^nd Respondent to consider Exhibit P8 representation and to pass appropriate orders.

¶20

ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or direction to the 3^rd Respondent to allow the petitioner to rejoin duty as rubber tapper.”

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶22

learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Plantation Corporation.

¶23

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner who was a tapper under the Corporation had been issued with an order of termination from service. By Ext.P4 juddgment of this Court, the petitioner had been enabled to file an appeal against the order of termination within two weeks from the date of judgment and the same was directed to be considered after hearing the petitioner as well. It is submitted that though Ext.P5 appeal was submitted by the petitioner on 26.3.2021, a hearing notice was issued to the petitioner notifying a hearing on

¶24

WP(C) NO. 13310 OF 2021

¶25

-: 3 :-

¶26

29.4.2021. It is submitted that the notice was received by the petitioner only on 4.5.2021. He had immediately submitted Ext.P8 request for adjournment of hearing and a consideration of the appeal after hearing him as well. It is submitted that the same is pending before the respondents.

¶27

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that though the direction in Ext.P4 was to file an appeal within two weeks, the appeal was dated 26.3.2021. However, the technicality was overlooked by the respondents and a hearing notice was issued as directed by this Court. It is submitted that the letter allegedly sent by the petitioner as Ext.P8, which is seen dated 5.5.2021, was received by the respondents only on 7.6.2021. In any view of the matter, it is stated that no further steps have been taken on the appeal.

¶28

Having heard the learned counsel on either side, I am of the opinion that since the petitioner specifically contends that he was not in receipt of the notice for hearing and is willing to appear for a hearing on the appeal, the appeal requires to be considered after hearing the petitioner as well.

¶29

WP(C) NO. 13310 OF 2021

¶30

-: 4 :-

¶31

In the above view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider Ext.P8 representation preferred by the petitioner and to dispose of the appeal submitted by the petitioner after hearing him as well. The respondents shall notify a fresh date for hearing and shall inform the petitioner of the fresh date fixed for hearing both through post and electronically and shall hear the petitioner and pass orders accordingly. The entire procedure shall be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶32

Sd/ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

¶33

Jvt/6.7.2021

¶34

APPENDIX

¶35

WP(C) NO. 13310 OF 2021

¶36

-: 5 :-

¶37

EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 12.06.2008.

¶38

EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 17.01.2015.

¶39

EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 22.02.2020.

¶40

EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE COURT IN W.P.(C)No.27626 DATED 08.03.2021.

¶41

EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 26.03.2021.

¶42

EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE LEGAL OFFICER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 20.04.2021.

¶43

EXHIBIT P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE POSTAL DEPARTMENT DATED 04.05.2021.

¶44

EXHIBIT P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 05.05.2021.

M.B. Sivadasan v. the Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.B. Sivadasan v. the Plantation Corporation of Kerala 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

Elamaram Yatheem Khana Vs the District Registrar General and Registrar of Societies

Fathima Bind Subair Vs University of Kerala

Pasha Vs the State of Kerala

The Principal, Al -Azar College of Engineering and Technology Vs the State of Kerala

Dr.K.P.Santhosh Vs the Kannur University

Suhailath N. P. Vs State of Kerala