IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 7448 of 2008()
1. SUMESH, S/O.SUKUMARAN, AGED 17 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. BINOY, S/O.KURIAKOSE, AGED 22 YEARS,
Vs
1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PIRAVOM
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :28/01/2009
O R D E R
? IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
+WA.No. 2355 of 2006(A)
#1. E. MOHAMMED YACOB SAIT,
... Petitioner
2. K.S. SNEHAPRABHA DEVI,
3. V.V. MURALI, ASST.MANAGER (PURCHASE)
4. N.D. PRADEEP, ASST.MANAGER (PURCHASE)
5. AGRO ENGINEER'S ASSOCIATION,
Vs
$1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE KERALA AGRO MACHINERY
3. K.A. VIJAYARAGHAVAN,
4. S. SATHEESHKUMAR,
5. N. RAJEEV, ASST. MANAGER (ASSEMBLY),
6. V.S. RAJEEV, ASST.MANAGER,
7. P. SATHEESH,
8. V. VIMAL KUMAR,
9. JOHNSON. M. KURIAKOSE,
10. M.C. VIJAYAKUMAR,
11. P. PRAMOD, SUPERINTENDENT (ACCOUNTS)
12. V. HARIDAS. P.A., KAMCO,
13. M. RAJAN, ASST.ENGINEER (Q.A) KAMCO,
14. I.M. FAUD, DEPUTY MANAGER, KAMCO,
! For Petitioner :SMT.S.KARTHIKA
^ For Respondent :SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE (SR.)
*Coram
The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
% Dated :21/01/2009
: O R D E R
KURIAN JOSEPH &
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ.
………………………………………………………………
W.A.No. 2355 OF 2006
……………………………………………………………….
Dated this the 21st January, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Kurian Joseph, J. :
This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the judgment in O.P.No.
23000 of 2000. The appellants herein were not parties to the
said Original Petition. The said Original Petition was filed by the
employees of Palakkad unit of the Kerala Agro Machinery
Corporation Ltd., challenging Ext. P5 communication of the
company. Ext. P5 pertains to the age of retirement and other
service benefits of the unit at Palakkad. The Kerala Agro
Machinery Corporation Ltd. has four units. The original unit at
Athani started in the year 1973 and the three other units, viz., at
Kalamassery, Palakkad and Mala started thereafter. As far as
the employees of Athani unit, the said unit was treated as an
independent unit for the purpose of service conditions. The
units at Kalamassery, Palakkad and Mala were treated as one
unit with a different set of service conditions.
2. During the pendency of the Original Petition, the
W.A.No. 2355 OF 2006
2
retirement age of the employees of the unit at Athani was also
prospectively fixed as 58 from the year 2002. In the impugned
judgment, the learned single Judge has held that the employees
of the units at Kalamassery, Palakkad and Mala are governed by
their own service conditions, as seen from the orders of
appointment and that their challenge on discrimination was
without any basis. However, it was noted that the employees
of Athani unit were being considered for various promotional
avenues in the units at Kalamassery, Palakkad and Mala. Hence
it was observed that it should be reciprocated in the sense that
the employees of those units should also be considered for
promotions available at the Athani unit.
3. Learned Senior Counsel, Adv. Smt. Seemanthini
submits that though the employees of Athani Unit are the
affected parties, none of them was impleaded in the Writ
Petition. It is further submitted that though the unit at Athani is
being treated distinctively for service conditions, the benefits
available to them have been taken away by the employees of the
other three units by the operation of the impugned judgment.
W.A.No. 2355 OF 2006
3
4. Shri K.R.B. Kaimal, learned senior counsel appearing for
the party respondents/writ petitioners submits that there is no
basis for the contention raised by the appellants, as far as
promotions are concerned. What is stated in the impugned
judgment is that in case the employees of the unit at Athani are
considered for promotions in the vacancies available in the units
at Kalamassery, Palakkad and Mala, necessarily the employees
in those units should also be considered for promotions in the
vacancies available in the unit at Athani and that alone is stated
in the judgment, it is submitted.
4. We do not think that we should refer to the various
other contentions since the only point pressed before us by the
learned Senior Counsel for the appellants is that the unit at
Athani should be treated separately for the purpose of promotion
since pursuant to the judgment under appeal, this principle has
been upset. We do not find that the learned single Judge has
laid down any contra principle or having issued any direction.
The learned single Judge has only observed in the judgment
that in case the employees of the unit at Athani are considered
W.A.No. 2355 OF 2006
4
for promotion in respect of the vacancies in the three other units
the employees in those units should also be considered for
promotion in the vacancies available in the unit at Athani. There
is no observation or direction for any integration. In case, the
company has understood it as otherwise, it is for the appellants
to pursue such grievances, if any, in appropriate proceedings.
We make it clear that in case any promotions in the unit at
Athani was held up based on the judgment of the learned single
Judge, since the scope of the judgment has been clarified in our
judgment, the company shall do the needful without further
delay.
Pending interlocutory applications in this Writ Appeal are
also disposed of.
KURIAN JOSEPH,
JUDGE.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.
lk