IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2009 / 31ST ASHADHA 1931 OP.No. 2340 of 1997(C) ---------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KALAVOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO.1497, KALAVOOR P.O., ALAPPUZHA DIST., REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. D.JANARDHANAN, BRAHMANI-PARAMBIL, KALAVOOR, ALAPPUZHA DIST. 2. THE LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ FOR R1 SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY FOR R1 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP NO.4240/1997 IN O.P. NO.2340/1997 DISMISSED: 22.7.2009 SD/-(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF CLAIM STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY R1 BEFORE R2 DT.1.3.91. P2: TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE R2 DT.7.8.91. P3: TRUE COPY OF AWARD DT.23.11.95. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... O.P. No.2340 of 1997 .................................................................... Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT Heard Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the first respondent. The order under challenge is the award passed by the Labour Court directing reinstatement of the first respondent in the petitioner-society. The case of petitioner was that first respondent was not appointed on regular basis and he was appointed on a temporary basis by the then Secretary without observing any formalities and the Secretary who appointed the first respondent was also dismissed from service. The case of the first respondent is that irrespective of what has happened to the Secretary who employed him, his appointment was regular and he was working in the office initially as an Office Assistant and later as a regular Attendant and there were also works in the sales outlet run by the Society, totaling around 7 years i.e. from 1978 to 1985. The salary being paid to the first respondent was Rs.210/-. 2. On going through the award and after hearing both sides, I am of the view that the employment of the first respondent, whether proper or not, was factually correct. Therefore, his removal from service was not legal or 2 proper. However, I notice that removal of first respondent took place in 1985 and eversince he was out of service for the last 24 years. He had not applied for Section 17B benefit, but this court through an interim order ordered payment of Rs.5,000/- when stay was extended on 8.4.1997. It is submitted that this amount was paid by the Society at that time. In any case there is no scope for reinstatement of first respondent at this distance of time and even if reinstated, he will have maximum of two years to serve the Society. Further, he is gainfully employed elsewhere during the last several years. In the circumstances, though I uphold Ext.P3 award with regard to termination as illegal, modify the award relating to relief portion and substitute the same by ordering compensation of Rs.50,000/- in addition to the amount of Rs.5,000/- paid under interim orders. The petitioner-Society will make payment within a period of one month from date of production of copy of this judgment by the first respondent. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms