High Court Kerala High Court

The Regional President vs The Regional Manager on 5 October, 2010

Kerala High Court
The Regional President vs The Regional Manager on 5 October, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 30741 of 2003(I)



1. THE REGIONAL PRESIDENT, VIJAYA BANK WORK
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, VIJAYA BANK
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.V.MATHEW

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :05/10/2010

 O R D E R
                  ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                  -----------------------------
                W.P.(C) No.30741 of 2003
               -----------------------------------
         Dated this the 5th day of October 2010


                     J U D G M E N T

Petitioner Union espouses the cause of one

P.K.Surendranathan, who was a part time sweeper of the

respondent’s bank. It would appear that the issue relating

the validity of his removal from service with effect from

1.12.1997 was referred by the Government for adjudication,

vide G.O.No.L-12012188/98(B-II) dated 28.2.99.

Accordingly the reference was registered as I.D.No.11/99

on the file of the 2nd respondent Tribunal. While

adjudicating the dispute, on 3.11.2002, request made by the

Union was for adjournment to adduce evidence was

rejected by the Tribunal. Then the case was posted to

24.12.2002 for evidence of the Management. The

Management also sought adjournment and that request was

W.P.(C) No.30741 of 2003

-: 2 :-

also rejected. Thereafter on the ground that both sides did

not adduce any evidence, the reference was closed and the

Tribunal has passed Ext.P1 Award holding that the

workmen is not entitled to any relief. In this writ petition

filed on 25.7.2003 the Union is challenging the said Award.

2. In my view, the issue relating to the removal of

the petitioner from service which occurred on 1.12.1997,

has, by lapse of time, become a stale one. Therefore, it is

not going to be advantageous for the parties to setting aside

the award and revive the dispute and to order fresh

adjudication at this distance of time. Therefore, I am not

persuaded to entertain the challenge against the award.

The writ petition fails and accordingly dismissed.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.

Jvt