IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 31653 of 2003(R) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- S.SARASWATHY, SENIOR FOREMAN, KELTRON COUNTERS LTD, SREEKARIYAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT ROHINI BHAVAN, TC.NO.IX/984, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. MR.M.BALAGOVINDAN, MR.M.R.SASITH. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNEMNT SECRETRIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, KELTRON, KELTRON HOUSE, VELLAYAMBALAM,THRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE KELTRON COUNTERS LTD., SREEKARIYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 4. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KELTRON COUNTERS LTD, SREEKARIYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. ANTONY MUKKATH, R3 & R4 BY MR.T.P.KELU NAMBIAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE, MR.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR.S.C, THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.31653/2003-R: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE MEMO NO. KCL-2 (1-201)' 98 – PD DTD. 31ST DECEMBER,1998 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE R.3. COMPANY. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 18/04/2000 LAUNCHED BY ONE OF THE EMPLOYEES OF THE R.3. COMPANY NAMELY N. SUSEELAN. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO. B1/2784/98 DTD. 02/07/1998 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE PRINCIPAL, CENTRAL POLYTECHNIC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. MD/00-33/99-2000 DTD. 4TH AUGUST, 2000 ISSUED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE KERALA STATE ELECTRONICS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE G.O.(MS).NO.78/2002/ID DTD. 26/07/2002 ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. KCL/ESS/2002 DTD. 08/10/2002 ISSUED BY THE R.4. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE LETTER WITH REF. NO. KSCB/MC/BR/SL 452/3555/2003-04 DTD. 27/06/2003 SENT BY THE MANAGER OF THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, MEDICAL COLLEGE BRANCH. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. KCL/ESS/2002/2 DTD. 12/10/2002 ISSUED BY THE R.4. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. KCL/ESS/2002 DTD. 15/11/2002 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE R.4. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER NO. KCL/PD/ESS/2002 DTD. 15/11/2002 ISSUED BY THE R.4. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 18/11/2002 SENT BY THE PETITIONER BY REGISTERED POST TO THE HONOURABLE MINISTER FOR INDUSTRIES & SOCIAL WELFARE, KERALA. EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DT. 25/11/2002 SENT TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE OFFICE OF THE HONOURABLE MINISTER FOR INDUSTRIES & SOCIAL WELFARE, KERALA. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R3.A: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 31/10/2002, ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE PRODUCTIVITY COUNCIL FORWARDING THE RESTRUCTERED ORGANISATION CHART. EXT.R3.B: COPY OF THE EXTRACT FROM THE MINUTES OF 186TH MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY HELD ON 12/11/2003. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.31653 OF 2003 (R) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was working as Senior Foreman under the 3rd respondent. By Ext.P9, she was discharged from service. It it this order which is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. From the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent Company, it would appear that as part of its re-structuring, one of the decisions taken by the company, as per Ext.R3(b) was to abolish the posts, which were identified as redundant or surplus, in a study conducted by the Kerala State Productivity Council. Among the various categories the category of Senior Foreman was also included and the number of such posts is stated to be 78. 3. It is therefore evident that the abolition of post of Senior Foreman lead to the discharge of the petitioner and others who were working in that category. It is the settled position of law that abolition of posts is the prerogative of the management and unless that power is proved to be exercised by the authority in a mala fide manner, this court will not be justified WPC.No.31653/03 :2 : in interfering with such a policy decision. There is nothing in this case to infer that the decision as reflected in Ext.R3(b) is mala fide and if so this court will not be justified in interfering with Ext.R3(b) or Ext.P9 order. 4. Now what remains is the entitlement of the petitioner for the monetary benefits. It is submitted by the counsel for the company that in C.P.No.11/2002 filed, this court appointed Adv. Adithya Shenoy as the Commissioner with whom Rs.5 crores has been deposited by the Government of Kerala for settlement of liabilities of the company. It is submitted that the Advocate Commissioner will soon invite claims and that petitioner will have to lodge his claim before the Commissioner. Therefore, it is directed that as and when claims are invited by the Advocate Commissioner, it will be open to the petitioner to urge his claim before the Commissioner for its settlement and disbursement of the dues. With this clarification the writ petition is closed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No.31653/03 :3 :