IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2009 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 37492 of 2008(L) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- M. SIDHEEQUE, SECRETARY, EDARIKKODE TEXTILES EMPLOYEES ORGANISATION (S.T.U) PUTHUPPARABU P.O. EDARIKKODE. BY ADV. MR.A.R.GANGADAS MR.JAGADEESH LAKSHMAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES (C) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE TEXTILE CORPORATION LTD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER, EDARIKKODE TEXTILES, UNIT OF KERALA STATE TEXTILE CORPORATION LTD, PUTHUPARAMBA P.O., MALAPPURAM - 676 501. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN R2 & R3 BY ADV. MR.M.HARSHAN,SC,KSTC,K.S.TEXTILE CORPN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.37492 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Co-worker and Secretary of the Employees Organisation in the third respondent, Edarikkode Textiles. The 3rd respondent introduced a system of granting Leave without Pay and Allowances LWPA for Employment abroad as per Government Guidelines in the year 1991. Some of the employees of the 3rd respondent have requested for leave without allowances for taking up employment abroad for a period of 5 years. The 3rd respondent has considered and accepted the applications on certain terms and conditions. 2. The main complaint raised herein is that the establishment has initiated proceedings against them treating them as unauthorised absentees. The third respondent, treating them as unauthorised absentees, published a notice in the Mathrubhoomi daily dated 07.03.2008 and 2.4.2008. (Ext.P2). Mainly, it is contended that the action proposed against the said persons cannot be justified under any circumstances. wpc: 37492 of 2008 2 3. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit. It is pointed out that out of the 8 employees mentioned in 2nd para, 4 persons had applied Leave Without Pay and Allowance and they overstayed their sanctioned leave and did not report for duty after expiry of their sanctioned leave. In respect of one Sri.Abdul Kareem (T No.249), he did not apply for long leave for taking up employmet abroad, but was on continuous absence from work. It is pointed out that one of the employees, Sri.V.Mustafa (T.No.178) had come directly to collect the memo of charges and the same has been given to him. It is further pointed out that action against the employees for unauthorised absence is in the beginning stage and procedure for conducting domestic enquiry has not yet started. It will be conducted according to the established procedure. It is also pointed out that the role of a co-worker comes only at the time of enquiry and that too to assist an employee during an enquiry when the employee is personally present for the enquiry. Clause 33(a) of the standing orders is relied upon in support of the said contention. It is up to the Management to proceed with the enquiry in accordance with the law. This Court, at this stage, has no reason to interfere with any proposed action and hence I am not satisfied that any orders are called for at this stage. wpc: 37492 of 2008 3 The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner may be allowed to represent the employees in the proposed enquiry. It is exclusively a matter for the enquiry officer to decide whether the petitioner should be allowed or not. Leaving open the remedy of the petitioner to approach the enquiry officer at the appropriate time, the Writ Petition is disposed of. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE bps