Disposed

Babu Sebastian v. Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd.

Kerala HC8 Sept 2021WP(C)/16336/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner alleged discriminatory treatment by Plantation Corporation regarding leave and medical benefits. Court directed the second respondent to dispose of specific representations within two months after giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. Writ Petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to dispose of representations Ext.P4 and Ext.P5 within two months after giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.

Babu Sebastian Vs Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd. — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS WEDNESDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 17TH BHADRA, 1943

¶4

WP(C) NO. 16336 OF 2021

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

1 BABU SEBASTIAN AGED 53 YEARS S/O DEVASSYKUTTY, RESIDING AT THIRUTHANATHIL HOUSE, MANJAPRA P O, MARYGIRI, ERNAKULAM-683581.

¶7

BY ADVS. P.G.JAYASHANKAR REVATHY P. MANOHARAN P.K.RESHMA (KALARICKAL) S.RAJEEV

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD. MUTTAMBALAM P.O, KOTTAYAM, KERALA-688004, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶10

2 MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶11

PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD, MUTTAMBALAM P.O, KOTTAYAM, KERALA-688004.

¶12

3 MANAGER

¶13

ATHIRAPPALLY ESTATE, PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD, KALADY PLANTATION P.O-683581.

¶14

BY ADV N.RAJESH, SC

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C) NO. 16336 OF 2021

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Dated this the 08^th day of September, 2021

¶20

The petitioner claims that there is discriminatory treatment by the first respondent Plantation Corporation in granting various benefits, including leave and medical benefits to the petitioner and the identically situated officers and staff of various estates of respondent Corporation. Stating this and pointing out the alleged discriminatory treatment based on Ext.P2 and Ext.P3, representations were made to the second respondent as Ext.P4 and Ext.P5. The limited relief sought by the petitioner at the time of hearing was that the second respondent may be directed to dispose of Ext.P4 and Ext.P5 representations as expeditiously as possible.

¶21

Opposing the application, the learned Standing Counsel for the P14lantation Corporation pointed out that though the petitioner alone has come up with the grievance, the pleadings are, as if, he represents the entire employees, officers and staff of the Plantation

¶22

¶23

WP(C) NO. 16336 OF 2021

¶24

Corporation. It is only an individual grievance, it was submitted. It was also submitted by the learned Counsel that being a policy decision it has to be taken at the level of the Board of Directors with the concurrence and approval of Government of Kerala.

¶25

However, recording these objections, I am inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition itself by directing the second respondent to consider Ext.P4 and Ext.P5 representations and to dispose it of, after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner either physically or if not possible, virtually, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶26

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS

JUDGE

SKP/8-9

WP(C) NO. 16336 OF 2021

¶32

¶33

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16336/2021

¶34

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶35

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 20.04.2021 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.

¶36

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY FURNISHED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, ATHIRAPALLY ESTATE DATED 04.05.2021.

¶37

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY FURNISHED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, PLANTATION CORPORATION'S HEAD OFFICE DATED 08.06.2021.

¶38

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25.06.2021 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶39

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 08.03.2021 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶40

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

¶41

TRUE COPY

¶42

P.A. TO JUDGE

Babu Sebastian v. Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babu Sebastian v. 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

Kavitha Rajan Vs Kerala State Electricity Board - Kseb

Ayisha Moosa Vs Shaju N.I.

Sudhir Antony Joseph Vs Anil Kumar

Rema.S., Vs State of Kerala

Baby.K.v Vs the Director

Suja George, Vs State of Kerala