High Court Kerala High Court

Sophy John (Formerly Hsa Grade I vs The Fertilisers Chemicals … on 5 July, 2006

Kerala High Court
Sophy John (Formerly Hsa Grade I vs The Fertilisers Chemicals … on 5 July, 2006
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 15397 of 2004(G)


1. SOPHY JOHN (FORMERLY HSA GRADE I,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE FERTILISERS CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LTD
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE CHIEF MANAGER (PERSONNEL),

                For Petitioner  :SMT.P.V.ASHA

                For Respondent  :SRI.ANTONY DOMINIC

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.THANKAPPAN

 Dated :05/07/2006

 O R D E R
                                 K.THANKAPPAN, J.
                      ---------------------------------------------------
                      W.P.(C)NOS. 10950,12545,12893,15397,
                            15617,16295 &16426 OF 2004
                      ---------------------------------------------------


                          Dated this the 5th  day of July,  2006


                                      JUDGMENT

The question involved in these Writ Petitions are one and the same and

hence they are being disposed of by a common judgment.

2. The first respondent – company had established schools at

Ambalamedu and Udyogamandal for the children of the employees of the

company. Due to financial crisis the Company was forced to wind up the schools

and for that purpose, the company issued a circular dated 28.2.2004 (marked as

Ext.P3 in W.P.(C)No.15397 of 2004). The said circular was followed by another

communication dated 24.3.2004 (Ext.P4 in the above Writ Petition). Pursuant to

the above circular and intimation, both teaching and non-teaching staff of the

schools were given an opportunity to avail the facility of V.R.S. Some of the

petitioners in these Writ Petitions submitted applications for V.R.S. The

company accepted the applications and even granted the benefits to the

applicants.

WP(C)NO.15397/04& CON.CASES 2

3. In the meanwhile, some of the employees of the school were

redeployed in the Marketing section of the company as a measure of internal

redeployment. In view of the above, the petitioners who had submitted their

application for V.R.S. also claim redeployment in any of the sections of the

company and they are willing to withdraw their applications as well as return

the benefits already received. They have filed the above Writ Petitions on the

ground that relieving them on V.R.S. or terminating their service is irregular and

illegal.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the

learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. A counter affidavit is also

filed for and on behalf of the respondents.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submits that the

company is not in a position to accommodate or redeploy the petitioners in any

other sections. According to counsel, there is excess manpower and there is a

proposal to reduce manpower.

WP(C)NO.15397/04& CON.CASES 3

6. Admittedly, the company is running at a loss and measures are being

taken by the Government to save the company and winding up the schools run by

the company is one such measure. It is also seen that licence has been granted to

outside educational agencies to run the schools and Voluntary Retirement

Scheme has been offered by the company to the staff of the schools. Further, the

company has redeployed certain employees. Now, the company is not in a

position to accommodate the petitioners in any of the sections. The petitioners

cannot claim redeployment only because some of the employees have been

redeployed in the Marketing section of the company. At the same time, this

Court cannot ignore the claim of the petitioners. Hence, considering the

willingness expressed by the petitioners, this Court is of the view that a scheme

should be framed to accommodate such employees in future. In the above

circumstances, there will be a direction to the first respondent to chalk out a

scheme by which the petitioners can be accommodated in the company as and

when vacancies arise in any section of the company, subject to eligibility. The

scheme shall be framed and published by the company within two months from

the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is also made clear that

preference shall be given to Aayahs and Sweepers.

WP(C)NO.15397/04& CON.CASES 4

The Writ Petitions are disposed of as above.

(K.THANKAPPAN, JUDGE)

sp/

WP(C)NO.15397/04& CON.CASES 5

K.THANKAPPAN, J.

W.P.(C)NOS.10950,12545,
12893, 15397,15617,16295
& 16426/2004

JUDGMENT

5TH JULY, 2006

WP(C)NO.15397/04& CON.CASES 6