IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RSA No. 435 of 2003()
1. S.BABU, GOKULAM HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ARAVUKAD KSHETHRAYOGAM, PARAVOOR,
... Respondent
2. ARAVUKAD INDUSTRIAL TRAINING CENTRE,
For Petitioner :SRI.SHEEJO CHACKO
For Respondent :SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :31/05/2007
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
===========================
R.S.A. NO. 435 OF 2003
===========================
Dated this the 31st day of May, 2007
JUDGMENT
Appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.1226/1998 on
the file of the Munsiff Court, Alappuzha.
Respondents are the defendants. Appellant
instituted the suit seeking a decree for
declaration that Ext.A4 order issued by first
respondent dismissing him from service of second
respondent as an Instructor is null and void and
not enforceable in law and therefore he is entitled
to be reinstated in service. He also sought a
decree for mandatory injunction directing
respondents to reinstate him in service. Appellant
was appointed as an Instructor in second
respondent Aravukad Industrial Training Centre,
Punnapra on 14.6.1990. On 10.8.1998, he was placed
under suspension under Ext.A1 order and after an
enquiry pursuant to Ext.A3 memo of charges he was
dismissed from service. It was challenged in the
R.S.A.No.435/2003 2
suit contending that the dismissal was illegal and
the procedures were not complied with before
dismissing him from service and as the dismissal is
in violation of the principles of natural justice,
it is to be declared null and void. Respondents
filed a written statement contending that the suit
itself is not maintainable and if at all the remedy
is to claim damages. It was contended that first
respondent is an unregistered voluntary association
and employment of appellant is not protected by any
statute and after due enquiry he was dismissed from
service and it cannot be challenged in the civil
court and therefore appellant is not entitled to
the decree sought for.
2. Learned Munsiff framed the necessary issues.
On the evidence of Pws. 1 to 5, DW1 and Exts.A1 to
A12 and Exts.B1 to B4, learned Munsiff dismissed
the suit holding that appellant is not entitled to
the protection of any statute and therefore he is
not entitled to the decree sought for. Appellant
challenged the decree and judgment before Sub
R.S.A.No.435/2003 3
Court, Alappuzha in A.S.166/2000. Learned
Additional Sub Judge on reappreciation of evidence
confirmed the finding of the learned Munsiff and
dismissed the appeal. It is challenged in the
Second Appeal.
3. Notice was issued to respondents before
admission.
4. Learned counsel appearing for appellant
was heard after the respondents appeared.
5. The arguments of learned counsel appearing
for appellant was that findings of courts below
establish that due enquiry was not conducted before
appellant was dismissed from service and the order
of dismissal without complying with the principles
of natural justice is unsustainable and therefore
courts below should have granted the decree sought
for. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in
A.Sundarambal v. Govt. of Goa, Daman & Diu (AIR
1988 SC 1700) it was argued that though the Supreme
Court found the employee was entitled to the
R.S.A.No.435/2003 4
protection from dismissal damages was awarded and
in such circumstances, as appellant was dismissed
from service in violation of natural justice,
courts below should have granted atleast damages
to him.
6. On hearing the counsel for the appellant, I
do not find any substantial question of law
involved in the appeal.
7. Even according to appellant, he is not
protected by any of the statute. He is not a
workman as provided under the Industrial Disputes
Act and is not entitled to get protection of the
said Act. The courts below rightly found that
appellant is not entitled to challenge the order of
dismissal, in the absence of any statutory
protection available to him. Though learned
counsel appearing for appellant argued that the
dismissal was a wrongful dismissal, it was not
pointed out as to how the dismissal was wrongful.
Even according to appellant, the terms of
employment does not provide for any mode of enquiry
R.S.A.No.435/2003 5
to be conducted, before he could be dismissed from
service. Respondents conducted an enquiry to their
satisfaction and dismissed appellant from service
finding that his continuance in their service is
not condusive. In such circumstance, civil court
cannot interfere with the order of dismissal and
appellant is not entitled to get a decree for
reinstatement in service.
8. Though it was argued that Apex Court had
granted damages in a case where an employee was
dismissed from service eventhough he is not a
workman as defined under the Industrial Disputes
Act in Sundarambal’s case (supra), the facts are
entirely different. In that case, damages of
Rs.40,000/- was granted in full and final
settlement of the claims of the employee not on the
basis of any legal right. As is clear from
paragraph 12 of the judgment, it was on the
voluntary statement made by the counsel who
appeared for the management that the said amount
R.S.A.No.435/2003 6
could be given to the appellant, damages was
awarded. It cannot be said that Sundarambal’s case
lays down a law to the effect that, even if a
person is not entitled to any statutory protection
and is dismissed from service, he is entitled to
get damages. I find no substantial question of law
involved in the appeal.
Appeal is dismissed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
tpl/-
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
———————
W.P.(C).NO. /06
———————
JUDGMENT
SEPTEMBER,2006