K.Viswanathan Nair vs The Managing Director on 4 June, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 15384 of 2009(P)


1. K.VISWANATHAN NAIR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES

                For Petitioner  :SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI

 Dated :04/06/2009

 O R D E R
                       V.GIRI, J
                     -------------------
                  W.P.(C).15384/2009
                     --------------------
        Dated this the 4th day of June, 2009

                     JUDGMENT

Petitioner, a practicing lawyer at Attingal and

Thiruvananthapuram was engaged as a part-time

legal adviser of the 1st respondent; terms and

conditions thereof are mentioned in Ext.P5.

According to the petitioner, while so he was

appointed as domestic enquiry officer in an issue

involving all the employees of the 1st respondent

and he submitted Ext.P4 report concluding that the

charges framed against the employees of the

company are on the basis of certain presumptions

and suspicions and that the Management has

thoroughly failed to put forward any proper

evidence to substantiate his challenge. He submits

that in the wake of Ext.P4, Management decided to

terminate his services as a part time legal adviser

with effect from 30.4.2009 and issued Ext.P2 in this

regard. Ext.P2 has been challenged in this writ

petition.

W.P.(C).15384/09
2

2. The relationship between the petitioner and the

KSFE is only that of a counsel and a client. It is

open to the client to engage the services of an

advocate. But it is the decision of the advocate to

decide whether he should appear. I am of the

opinion that the petitioner, a senior member of the

Bar, who is to uphold the tradition of the Bar

should respond to Ext.P2 by taking the stand that

the client who is not satisfied with his services is no

longer welcome in his office. At any rate, I do not

think that the petitioner himself can be aggrieved

by Ext.P2 and seek restoration of his status of part-

time legal adviser of the 2nd respondent after the 2nd

respondent has taken a decision to terminate his

service. In these circumstances, I find no merit in

the writ petition and hence the same is dismissed.

V.GIRI,
Judge

mrcs