IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 2453 of 2005()
1. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SUBHASH CHANDRA BABU, ASST. MANAGER,
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF DAIRY DEVELOPMENT,
3. STATE OF KERALA - REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN (SR.)
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN
Dated :17/10/2008
O R D E R
J.B. Koshy & K.P.Balachandran, JJ.
————————————–
W.A. No. 2453 of 2005
—————————————
Dated this the 17th day of October, 2008
Judgment
Koshy,J.
First respondent was working in the erstwhile Kottayam
Central Products Dairy under the Kottayam District Co-operative
Milk Supplies Union Limited as a Shift Operator with effect from
1.12.1976 in the scale of pay of Rs.450-785. The Kottayam District
Co-operative Milk Supplies Union Limited was taken over by the
appellant Union along with the employees and first respondent was
redeployed with effect from 1.3.1985 as Chemist in the same scale
of pay. A settlement was arrived at on 6.2.1986 wherein an
employee is entitled to get grade promotion after eight years of
service as on 30.6.1988. It is also noticed that the managing
director of the Ernakulam Regional Co-operative Milk Producers’
Union has reported that he is eligible for higher grade as per the
agreement. First respondent claimed those benefits. As per Ext.P8
proceedings of the Director of Dairy Development, it was found that
he was eligible for grade promotion. The appeal filed by the
W.A.No.2453/2005 2
appellant was dismissed by the Government. The learned Judge
also dismissed the petition.
2. It was contended before the appellate authority by
the appellant that the settlement was arrived at after a strike and
first respondent did not join the strike and, therefore, the benefit
cannot be granted to the first respondent. But, merely by not
joining the strike, one will not be disentitled to get the benefit of a
settlement which was entered with the Union after the strike.
Secondly, it was contended that the claim was placed after 11
years, but, it is a continuing claim and it has effect even on his
retiral dues. On that ground alone, it cannot be denied especially
having been allowed by the statutory authorities. In the writ
petition filed, it was also contended that considering the salary
scale, he is in the officer grade. An officer is not entitled to the
benefit of such settlement and settlements are applicable only to
workman category irrespective of the fact whether he comes under
the category of workman as defined under the Industrial Disputes
Act. In other words, officers have got separate promotion and wage
revision policy. Considering the wages, first respondent is an officer
and he will get only the benefits granted to officer category and not
as a workman as per the settlement and he is getting all the
W.A.No.2453/2005 3
benefits of officer category, but, unfortunately, such a contention
was not raised before the statutory authorities and it cannot be
raised in the writ petition for the first time. We make it clear that
the benefit is confined to the first respondent alone and if any claim
is raised by similarly placed persons, appellant is free to contest the
same as this question was not raised and considered by the
authorities at all.
With that observation, this writ appeal is disposed of.
J.B.Koshy
Judge
K.P.Balachandran
Judge
vaa
W.A.No.2453/2005 4
J.B. KOSHY
AND
K.P.Balachandran,JJ.
————————————-
W.A. No.2453/2005
————————————-
Judgment
Date:17th October,2008