High Court Kerala High Court

C.K.Valsala vs Travancore Devaswom Board on 22 September, 2010

Kerala High Court
C.K.Valsala vs Travancore Devaswom Board on 22 September, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

DBP.No. 60 of 2010()



1. C.K.VALSALA
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :..

                For Respondent  :SRI.K.N.VENUGOPALA PANICKER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN

 Dated :22/09/2010

 O R D E R

THOTTATHIL.B.RADHAKRISHNAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ.

————————————————————————

DBP No.60 of 2010

————————————————————————

Dated 22nd September 2010

Order

Thottathil.B.Radhakrishnan, J.

We have perused the report of the learned

Ombudsman, disclosing the sad plight of the complainant

Smt.C.K.Valsala. She works for a pittance of Rs.500/-,

cleaning the vessels for ‘uchapooja’ in a temple under the

Travancore Devaswom Board. All other pujas in the

temple are done under the control of the Cochin

Devaswom Board. The complainant does not appear to

have any work under the Cochin Devaswom Board. She,

however, cooks food for the students of Kalapeedam, run

by the Travancore Devaswom Board.

2. There is no reason, why the Travancore

Devaswom Board shall not act in terms of the report of the

learned Ombudsman, to increase the wages of the

complainant, commensurate with the work done by her,

DBP 60/10 2

taking into account, the cost of living in such cities. Under

these circumstances, the Travancore Devaswom Board is

directed to comply with the report of the learned

Ombudsman by providing such increase in the wages of

the complainant as may be deemed fit on the facts and

circumstances, having particular regard to the minimum

wage pattern also, available in the labour sector. Let such

decision be taken and arrears, if any, be disbursed to the

complainant with effect from such date as the Board may

decide, having a realistic view of the matter. Let this be

done within an outer limit of three months from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment.

The DBP is ordered accordingly.





                            THOTTATHIL.B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
                            JUDGE



                            P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE

sta

DBP 60/10    3

DBP 60/10    4