IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP.No. 925 of 2010(V)
1. V.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, SENIOR PROCESS
... Petitioner
2. N.VISWANATHAN NAIR, SENIOR PROCESS
3. M.JAISANKAR, SENIOR PROCESS OPERATOR,
4. JOLLY MAMPILLY, SENIOR PROCESS OPERATOR,
5. MOHAN POTTY, SENIOR PROCESS OPERATOR,
6. ABRAHAM.V.SAMUVEL, SENIOR PROCESS
7. K.V.BENNY, SENIOR PROCESS OPERATOR,
8. BOBY.J.MATHEW,SENIOR PROCESS OPERATOR,
9. M.R.VIJAYACHANDRAN, SENIOR PROCESS
10. V.S.JOHN, SENIOR PROCESS OPERATOR,
11. GEORGE THOMAS, SENIOR PROCESS OPERATOR,
12. B.MOHANA CHANDRAN, SENIOR PROCESS
13. SIJI JOSEPH, SENIOR PROCESS OPERATOR,
14. SAMBU NAMBOOTHIRI.S.N.,SENIOR PROCESS
15. RAJEEV, SENIOR PROCESS OPERATOR,
16. A.A.JOHSY, SENIOR PROCESS OPERATOR,
17. D.JAYAKUMAR, SENIOR PROCESS OPERATOR,
18. JOJY JOSEPH CHENNATTUSSERY,
19. GOPALAKRISHNAN UNNITHAN.S.,
20. ANILKUMAR.E.N., SENIOR PROCESS OPERATOR,
Vs
1. M/S.FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE
... Respondent
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER (HUMAN RESOURCE
3. THE ASSISTANT MANAGER (PRODUCTION),
For Petitioner :SRI.M.R.VENUGOPAL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :23/11/2010
O R D E R
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J.
-------------------------------------
R.P.No.925 OF 2010
in
W.P.(C)No.15014 Of 2009
-----------------------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2010
O R D E R
The petitioners in the Writ Petition have filed this Review Petition
by producing Annexure I which is a reply given by the Management to
the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.19774/2006. The contention of the
learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Management has
considered in Annexure I that the petitioners therein had been given
stagnation promotion to E2 Grade in Sub Layer with retrospective
effect from 19.9.2003. It is also seen stated that they were granted
E3 Grade with effect from 19.9.2006 as part of the grievance
redressal.
2. While considering the pleas raised by the petitioner, in
paragraph No.7 of the judgment this Court noted that the proceedings
granting benefits to the petitioners in the earlier Writ Petition are not
available in the pleadings. The learned counsel for the review
petitioners explained that the petitioners were not in possession of
Annexure I at the time of hearing of the Writ Petition and therefore
they could not produce it. It is submitted that the same clinches the
issue and accordingly it is prayed that the judgment may be reviewed
R.P.No.925/10 -2-
and the respondents may be directed to grant the benefits, to the
review petitioners.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the Management, who
submitted that the circumstances wherein the said benefits were
granted to the petitioners in the other Writ Petition was as part of the
grievance redressal and therefore the petitioners herein cannot rely
upon the same. It is also submitted that representations have been
received from the petitioners as directed in the judgment and final
replies have been given on 30.10.2010.
In that view of the matter, as the directions in the judgment
have been complied with, there is no purpose in entertaining the
Review Petition. There is no apparent error also. Leaving open the
remedy of the petitioners to challenge the orders in appropriate Writ
Petition, the Review Petition is dismissed. It is open to the petitioners
to rely upon Annexure I, if they deem fit. The copy of the proceedings
dated 30.10.2010 will be issued to the petitioners without any delay if
not already communicated.
( T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)
dsn