Dismissed

Shijo Mathew v. Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation (Supplyco)

Kerala HC21 Nov 2023WP(C)/27674/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, daily wage salesmen, sought reinstatement after disengagement alleged to be unfair due to alleged manager replacement schemes. The court, finding their employment contract-based and disengagement consequent to detected misdemeanor, dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs prayed for and the writ petition is dismissed.

Shijo Mathew Vs Kerala State Civil Supplies… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V TUESDAY, THE 21^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 30TH KARTHIKA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 27674 OF 2020

¶3

PETITIONER/S:

¶4

1SHIJOMATHEW
AGED35YEARS
S/O.MATHEW,THADATHILHOUSE,POTTANKADP.O,
NEARKUNJITHANNI,IDUKKI
2ARUNV.R,
AGED34YEARS
S/O.RAMACHANDRANR.V,VANCHIPURACKALHOUSE,
CHITHIRAPURAMP.O,POWERHOUSE,IDUKKI
3VIJESHC.U,
AGED35YEARS
S/O.UTHUPPACHAN,CHERUPARAMBILHOUSE,
POTTANKODP.O,POTTANKAD,IDUKKI
BYADVS.
T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN
SRI.K.K.AKHIL

¶5

RESPONDENT/S:

¶6

1KERALASTATECIVILSUPPLIESCORPORATION(SUPPLYCO)
REPRESENTEDBYITSMANAGINGDIRECTOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAMPIN695001

¶7

2THEMANAGERINCHARGE,
SUPPLYCOSUPERMARKET,KUNJITHANNI,
IDUKKIDISTRICTPIN685565

¶8

SMT.MOLLYJACOB,SCFORSUPPLYCO
BYADVSRI.R.LAKSHMINARAYAN

¶9

THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON
21.11.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING:

¶10

W.P. (C) No.27674 of 2020

¶11

¶12

JUDGMENT

¶13

The petitioners 1, 2 and 3 state that they were working as Salesmen on daily wages in the Supply co Supermarket from 2006, 2009, and 2008, respectively till December 2018. Their grievance is that in the month of January 2019, they were disengaged on the ground that there were surplus workers. The petitioners assert that the respondents are in the process of taking new workers in the place of the petitioners and appointing them permanently. In the circumstances, they have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

¶14

i. issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ order or direction directing the respondents to reinstate/reengage the petitioners as Salesmen/worker in the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation, forthwith.

¶15

A statement has been filed by the respondents wherein paragraphs

¶16

Nos.2 and 3 read as under:

¶17

The petitioners while serving on daily wages in the Kunjithanni Super market under Munnar Depot, on the complaint received from the Officer in Charge of the Kunjithanni Super market that daily wages staff has committed mal practice in the outlet and misappropriated the stock, Vigilance Officer of the first respondent Corporation, inspected the Kunjithanni Super market on 7.12.2018. Stock position of Maveli items as on 7.12.2018 was verified. At the time of inspection, the Officer in Charge was also present. Vigilance officer has submitted report dated 13.12.2018, that irregularities were detected and

¶18

W.P. (C) No.27674 of 2020

¶19

¶20

suggested that service of daily wages staff, ie.. petitioners in the writ petition, should be terminated immediately and they should be barred from employing in any Supplyco outlet in future. It was also reported by the Vigilance Officer that since huge variation in stock was found, stock verification in the outlet should be done immediately and charge should be handed over to an experienced capable person, replacing the then officer in charge.

¶21

On receipt of the report dated 13.12.2018 of the Vigilance Officer, the first respondent passed order dated 15.12.2018 to expeditiously implement action on the irregularities detected in the report of the Vigilance Officer. Consequently, the Vigilance Officer of the Corporation issued communication dated 17.12.2018 to the Depot Manager, Munnar. ….

¶22

The respondents have also placed on record a copy of the report 13.12.2018 submitted by the Village Officer and a copy of the communication

¶23

dated 17.12.2018 of the Vigilance Officer addressed to the Depot Manager.

¶24

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶25

petitioners.

¶26

I find that the petitioners are daily wage employees, and their employment was on a temporary basis. From the records made available before this Court, it is apparent that misappropriations were carried out by the petitioners, and it was based on a vigilance report that the petitioners were disengaged. The respondents have denied in their counter affidavit that after disengaging the petitioners, new workers have been appointed in their place.

¶27

W.P. (C) No.27674 of 2020

¶28

¶29

As the petitioners were daily wagers who were appointed on a

¶30

contract basis and as they were disengaged in the year 2019 consequent to the

¶31

detection of a misdemeanor, the petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs prayed for.

¶32

This writ petition is dismissed.

¶33

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE

¶34

NS/21/11/2023

¶35

W.P. (C) No.27674 of 2020

¶36

¶37

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27674/2020

¶38

PETITIONEREXHIBITS

¶39

`EXHIBIT P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND` `IDENTITY CARDS OF THE 1ST PETITIONER.`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND`
	`IDENTIY CARD OF THE 2ND PETITIONER`
`EXHIBIT P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND`
	`IDENTIRY CARD OF THE 3RD PETITIONER.`
`EXHIBIT P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8/8/2016 IN WPC`
	`NO. 25978/2016 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT`

Shijo Mathew v. Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation (Supplyco)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shijo Mathew v. Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation (Supplyco)

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

M.Giridharan Vs State of Kerala

Anil Kumar.v.K Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Ksrtc

Bijesh Vs the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Jayasudha. K.G. Vs State of Kerala, Represented by the Secretary to Government

Unnikrishnan Nair. K Vs Union of India

Kottarakkara Public Works Skilled Workers Labour Contract Co-Operative Soceity Ltd. Vs State of Kerala