IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2009 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1931 WA.No. 561 of 2005() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.15773/1998 Dated 27/09/2004 .................... APPELLANT(S): (2ND RESPONDENT IN O.P): -------------------------------------- K.P.UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O.LATE KRISHNAN NAIR KOLLANCHERI PUTHEN VEETTIL, P.O. NADUVATTOM, (VIA) KUTTIPPURAM, TIRUR TALUK,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): (PETITIONER & 1ST RESPONDENT IN O.P): ---------------------------------------------------- 1. THE PRESIDENT, KUTTIPPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., VALANCHERRY P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, KOZHIKODE. R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. R. BINDU SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR FOR R1 SRI.K.P.SUDHEER THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/03/2009, ALONG WITH WA NO. 714 OF 2005, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.Nos. 561 & 714 of 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. W.A.No.561 of 2005 This appeal is filed against the judgment in O.P. No. 15773 of 1998. The said Original Petition was filed by the first respondent herein, challenging Ext.P5 order of the Appellate Authority, under the Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960, ordering reinstatement of the appellant in the service of the first respondent's Bank or to pay Rs.60,000/- by way of compensation. The appellant was engaged in a Maveli Store opened by the Bank, as Salesman. Owing to loss, the Maveli Store was closed down and therefore the appellant was retrenched from service with effect from 30.9.1993. Contending that no notice was served on him as provided under Section 18 of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960, the appellant filed shop appeal before the Appellate Authority. W.A.Nos. 561 & 714 of 2005 2 3. After hearing both sides, the appeal was allowed on the ground of lack of notice. The learned Single Judge interfered with the decision, on the ground that the Appellate Authority did not advert to various materials produced by the Bank. It was also found that the Maveli Store, where the appellant worked, was closed for ever. Though the Original Petition was allowed, the Bank was directed to pay Rs.2,500/- as cost to the appellant. Feeling aggrieved by the said decision of the learned Single Judge, this appeal is preferred. 4. We heard the learned counsel on both sides. It is common case that the Maveli Store has been closed for ever. The appellant was entitled to get one month's notice or wages in lieu of that notice before retrenching him from service. But the learned Judge has ordered to grant Rs.2,500/- as cost, which will take in any notice pay, which the appellant was entitled to receive under the Shops and Commercial Establishment Act or the Industrial Disputes Act. If the Maveli Store was functioning continuously, the appellant could have claimed reinstatement even for the technical violation involved in this case. Since it is closed for ever, we feel that it may not be proper to interfere W.A.Nos. 561 & 714 of 2005 3 with the decision of the learned Single Judge, in which a plausible view has been taken. But we clarify that if in future a vacancy in the cadre of Salesman arises in the Society, the appellant can assert his right for re-employment. If he has got any claim for employment in any other post as a retrenched employee, the rights in this regard will not be affected by the judgment of the learned Single Judge or the order of the Appellate Authority. 5. With the above clarification, this appeal is closed. W.A.No. 714 of 2005 6. In view of the judgment in W.A. No. 561 of 2005, this appeal is also closed. (K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm