IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 4796 of 2009(U)
1. P.S. RADHAMONEY, SWEEPER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DIRECTOR OF COIR DEVELOPMENT,
... Respondent
2. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE COIR
3. ANIL.K.R, MANAGING DIRECTOR,
4. SREEKUMAR, PERSONNEL MANAGER
5. S. NASSIM, WORKS MANAGER,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.KARTHIKEYA PANICKER
For Respondent :SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :18/02/2009
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C).No.4796 of 2009-U
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 18th day of February, 2009.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, a woman employee of an apex co-
operative society, namely, the second respondent,
states that disciplinary proceedings against her
as initiated by the Manager and in the course of
which, the fourth respondent has been appointed
as an Enquiry Officer, should remain stalled till
the Women’s Commission hears a complaint filed by
her regarding alleged abuse in office. The
petitioner, who states that she entered service
as a sweeper on appointment on compassionate
grounds, following the demise of her husband,
pleads that though she entered as a sweeper, she
was thereafter moved into a manufacturing unit
and there, she is being compelled to serve tea
and also to serve hot water even for the male
employees. If the Women’s Commission feels that
WP(C)4796/2009 -: 2 :-
this is a matter in which the Commission has to
exercise its authority on the basis of the
complaint of the petitioner, that authority would
take such action as is found necessary in
accordance with law. But, that cannot, in any
manner, impair the employer’s rights to conclude
the enquiry proceedings initiated on allegations
levelled against the petitioner. It is also not
for the writ court, as of now, to nip all the
entire disciplinary proceedings in its bud since
that would prejudice the management’s rights to
effect appropriate control over its employees.
If, ultimately, the petitioner has any grievance
regarding the outcome of the disciplinary
proceedings, she has an alternate efficacious
remedy under Section 69 of the KCS Act. This writ
petition would only stultify early conclusion of
proceedings, either way. Hence, this writ
petition is dismissed.
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE.
Sha/180209