Partly allowed

K.R Santhosh v. the B.P.C.L Employees Co-Operaive Society Ltd. NO.226

Kerala HC29 Nov 2022WP(C)/10951/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of two writ petitions challenging a Tribunal order regarding employee benefits. It upheld the Tribunal's orders except for the compensation quantum, fixing it at Rs. 2.5 lakhs to be paid within two months. This represents a one-line disposal without substantive reasoning.

What did the court decide?

Compensation fixed at Rs. 2.5 lakhs to be paid by the Society within two months.

K.R Santhosh Vs the B.P.C.L Employees… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 29^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 4111 OF 2020

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

BPCL EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.226 NO.226,BPCL, KOCHI REFINERY, AMBALAMUGAL, KOCHI-682302, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. BY ADVS. P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.D.PREM KAMATH SMT.SAHEERA K. SHRI.JYOTHISH KRISHNA SHRI.ROHAN GIRISH RAJ

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 K.R.SANTOSH DRIVER/BEARER, S/O.T.S.RAGHAVAN, RESIDING IN KANDAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, JANATHA ROAD NORTH, PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM-682025.

¶10

2 THE CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT, VANROSE JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695034.

¶11

3 THE KERALA C0-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL, NEAR RUSSIAN CULTURAL CENTRE, OTTUKUZHI, BAKERY JUNCTION, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695034.

¶12

BY ADV SRI.P.P.JACOB

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.11.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).10951/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C)Nos.4111 of 2020 and 10951 of 2020

¶15

: 2 :

¶16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶17

PRESENT

¶18

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶19

TUESDAY, THE 29^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 10951 OF 2020

¶20

PETITIONER:

¶21

K.R SANTHOSH AGED 60 YEARS, S/O T.S.RAGHAVAN, RESIDING AT KANDAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, JANATHA ROAD NORTH, PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM, BADGE NO.844, DRIVER/BEARER, B.P.C.L EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.226, B.P.C.L, KOCHI REFINERY, AMBALAMUGAL.

¶22

BY ADV P.P.JACOB

¶23

RESPONDENTS:

¶24

1 THE B.P.C.L EMPLOYEES CO-OPERAIVE SOCIETY LTD NO.226, B.P.C.L., KOCHI REFINERY, AMBALAMUGAL, ERNAKULAM-682302, REPRESENTED BY THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY. 2 THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE B.P.C.L EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.226, B.P.C.L, KOCHI REFINERY, AMBALAMUGAL, ERNAKULAM - 682302, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. 3 THE CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT, KAITHAMUKKU, PETTA ROAD, NALUMUKKU, PAZHAVANGADI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695024. 4 THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL, VANROSE JUNCTION, NEAR JUBILEE HOSPITAL, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695034. BY ADVS. SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.D.PREM KAMATH SMT.MEENAKSHY S DEV SHRI.JYOTHISH KRISHNA SHRI.ABEL TOM BENNY

¶25

WP(C)Nos.4111 of 2020 and 10951 of 2020

¶26

: 3 :

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.11.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).4111/2020, THE COURT ON THE

¶28

SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

WP(C)Nos.4111 of 2020 and 10951 of 2020

¶30

: 4 :

¶31

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J. ========================= W.P.(C) No. 4111 of 2020 & 10951 of 2020 ========================== Dated this the 29^th November, 2022

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

Among the two writ petitions above, W.P.(C).No.4111 of 2020 has been filed by the “BPCL Employees Co-operative Society” (Society for short), impugning the order of the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal in Appeal Nos. 17 & 18 of 2019, to the extent to which it ordered payment of certain benefits to an employee against whom they have taken disciplinary action namely, Sri.K.R.Santhosh; while said Sri.K.R.Santhosh, has filed W.P.(C).No.10951 of 2020, challenging the same order of the Tribunal, contending that monetary benefits are not sufficient.

¶34

These matters were heard by this Court in extenso on 23.11.2022; and subsequently, it was informed that the parties would like to attempt an out-of-Court settlement.

¶35

Sri.Benny.P.Thomas – learned counsel for the Society, submitted that, taking note of the fact that the petitioner's sister is suffering from a debilitating disease and that he is her care taker, purely as a matter of indulgence and fairness, his client is willing to pay 50% of the back wages, along with all contributions that are eligible to him towards pensionary benefits. He submitted that his

¶36

WP(C)Nos.4111 of 2020 and 10951 of 2020

¶37

: 5 :

¶38

client, however, has reservations about paying compensation as ordered by the Tribunal.

¶39

Sri.P.P.Jacob, learned counsel appearing for Sri.K.R.Santhosh – petitioner in W.P.(C).No. 10951 of 2020, submitted that since the Society is offering his client 50% of the back wages, he will accept it in full and final settlement, provided they pay him eligible compensation and also remit the pensionary contributions, as is warranted.

¶40

It is obvious that, dispute between the parties are solely in the realm of compensation, as ordered by the Tribunal and nothing else.

¶41

I have gone through the materials on record and have evaluated the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

¶42

Though, Sri.Benny.P.Thomas vehemently argues that, going by the factual circumstances proved and the evidence on record, the petitioner could have been given no benefit at all, either by the Arbitration Court or by the Appellate Tribunal; Sri.P.P.Jacob argues to the contrary, saying that limiting the back wages to 50% of salary for the period when his client was kept out of service is illegal.

¶43

On the question of compensation, Sri.P.P.Jacob pointed out that Rs.5 lakhs alone has been awarded by the Tribunal, which is the least that could have been done in the given circumstances; but that he leaves it to this Court to take an apposite decision on its quantum,

¶44

¶45

: 6 :

¶46

since his client does not want to now precipitate the issue any further.

¶47

I, therefore, asked Sri.Benny.P.Thomas – learned counsel for the Society, whether they would agree to this Court making a provision for the compensation, by reducing it appositely; to which, he fairly replied that, he leaves it to be appropriately decided by this Court, but praying that a very large amount be not imposed.

¶48

Taking note of the afore and since it would be now unnecessary to hear the parties on the merits of the impugned order, I dispose of both the afore writ petitions with the following directions:

¶49

(a) The directions in the impugned order of the Tribunal, confirming the Awards are hereby upheld, except to

¶50

the extent of the quantum of compensation.

¶51

(b) As far as the compensation is concerned, this Court deems it appropriate to fix it as Rs.2.5 lakhs, which is half the amount awarded by the Arbitration Court and confirmed by the Tribunal.

¶52

The amounts as afore shall be honoured by the Society within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶53

Sd/DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

anm

: 7 :

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10951/2020

¶58

PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.5.2007 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATZED 30.5.2012 ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE AWARD IN A.R.C.65/2013 DATED 24.7.2018 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE AWARD IN A.R.C.66/2012 DATED 19.6.2018 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN A.P.17/2019 DATED 31.10.2019 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN A.P.11/2019 DATED 31.10.2019 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN A.P18/2019 DATED 31.10.2019. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

¶59

¶60

: 8 :

¶61

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4111/2020

¶62

PETITIO EXHIBIT	NER EXHIBITS P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PUNISHMENT ORDER DATED 22.05.2007.
EXHIBIT	P2 TRUE COPY OF AWARD DATED 21.11.2012 PASSED BY THE CGIT IN ID NO.7 OF 2011.
EXHIBIT	P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ARC NO.65/2013
EXHIBIT	P4 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 25.01.2014 IN ARC NO.65/2013.
EXHIBIT	P5 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 24.07.2018 ARC NO.65/2013
EXHIBIT	P6 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 19.02.2019 A.P.NO.17/2019.
EXHIBIT	P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN APPEAL NO.17 OF 2019 DATED 31.10.2019.
EXHIBIT	P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PUNISHMENT ORDER DATED 30.05.2012.
EXHIBIT	P9 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ARC NO.66/2012.
EXHIBIT	P10 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 15.01.2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN ARC NO.66 OF 2012.
EXHIBIT	P11 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 19.06.2018 ARC NO.66/2012
EXHIBIT	P12 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 19.02.2019 FILED BY PETITIONERS A.P.NO.18/2019.
EXHIBIT	P13 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL NO.11 OF 2019 DATED 22.02.2019.
EXHIBIT	P14 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN APPEAL NO.11 OF 2019 DATED 31.10.2019
EXHIBIT	P15 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN APPEAL NO.18 OF 2019 DATED 31.10.2019.
RESPOND	ENTS' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT	R1(a) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) 17361/13 DATED 31.5.2017
EXHIBIT	R1(b) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO.41413/2018 DATED 2.1.2019

K.R Santhosh v. the B.P.C.L Employees Co-Operaive Society Ltd. NO.226

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.R Santhosh v. the B.P.C.L Employees Co-Operaive Society Ltd. NO.226

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

Anver S R Vs Director Oftechnical Education

Anitha Kumar.S Vs the Lbs Centre for Science and Technology

Dr.Vinodu George Vs the Director, Lbs Centre for the Science and Technology

Bpcl Employees Co-Operative Society LTD.NO.226 Vs K.R.Santosh

R.K.Vinod Vs Sunitha Jacob

Shaji.K.G Vs Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General)