High Court Kerala High Court

Kalavoor Service C0-Op.Soc.Ltd vs D.Janardhanan on 22 July, 2009

Kerala High Court
Kalavoor Service C0-Op.Soc.Ltd vs D.Janardhanan on 22 July, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP.No. 2340 of 1997(C)



1. KALAVOOR SERVICE C0-OP.SOC.LTD.
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. D.JANARDHANAN
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN (SR.)

                For Respondent  :SRI.N.RAGHURAJ

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :22/07/2009

 O R D E R
                       C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
                  ....................................................................
                                 O.P. No.2340 of 1997
                  ....................................................................
                     Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2009.

                                         JUDGMENT

Heard Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner and counsel

appearing for the first respondent. The order under challenge is the award

passed by the Labour Court directing reinstatement of the first respondent in

the petitioner-society. The case of petitioner was that first respondent was

not appointed on regular basis and he was appointed on a temporary basis

by the then Secretary without observing any formalities and the Secretary

who appointed the first respondent was also dismissed from service. The

case of the first respondent is that irrespective of what has happened to the

Secretary who employed him, his appointment was regular and he was

working in the office initially as an Office Assistant and later as a regular

Attendant and there were also works in the sales outlet run by the Society,

totaling around 7 years i.e. from 1978 to 1985. The salary being paid to the

first respondent was Rs.210/-.

2. On going through the award and after hearing both sides, I am of

the view that the employment of the first respondent, whether proper or not,

was factually correct. Therefore, his removal from service was not legal or

2

proper. However, I notice that removal of first respondent took place in

1985 and eversince he was out of service for the last 24 years. He had not

applied for Section 17B benefit, but this court through an interim order

ordered payment of Rs.5,000/- when stay was extended on 8.4.1997. It is

submitted that this amount was paid by the Society at that time. In any case

there is no scope for reinstatement of first respondent at this distance of time

and even if reinstated, he will have maximum of two years to serve the

Society. Further, he is gainfully employed elsewhere during the last several

years. In the circumstances, though I uphold Ext.P3 award with regard to

termination as illegal, modify the award relating to relief portion and

substitute the same by ordering compensation of Rs.50,000/- in addition to

the amount of Rs.5,000/- paid under interim orders. The petitioner-Society

will make payment within a period of one month from date of production of

copy of this judgment by the first respondent.

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Judge
pms