IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2009 / 26TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 19589 of 2009(P) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ K.N.RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN, KUNNUMPURATHU HOUSE, KUTTANELLOOR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, WORKING AS LAST GRADE (II), PHARNACEUTICAL CORPORATION (IM) KERALA LTD., (OUSHADHI), KUTTANNELLOOR P.O. BY ADV. MR.P.GOPINATH MENON RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATION(IM) KERALA LTD., (OUSHADI) KUTTANELLOOR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. SMT. REMANI, LAST GRADE(GRADE I), THE PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATION(IM) KERALA LTD. (OUSHADI) KUTTANELLOR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.V.KRISHNA MENON, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.19589 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated 17th July, 2009 JUDGMENT Heard Sri.P.Gopinath Menon, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.V.Krishna Menon, the learned standing counsel appearing for the first respondent. In the nature of the order that I propose to pass, I do not deem it necessary to issue notice to or hear the second respondent. 2. The petitioner, a Last Grade Servant working in the Pharmaceutical Corporation (Indian Medicine) Kerala Limited, has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P5 order dated 23.1.2009 imposing on him the punishment of withholding of promotion for a period of three years and also the punishment of suspension during the period from 10.09.2008 to 23.01.2009. The petitioner challenges Ext.P5 on various grounds including the ground that the enquiry is vitiated. Ext.P7, the Certified Standing Orders of the first respondent company discloses that an appeal lies from Ext.P5 to the Board of Directors of the company who have to constitute a sub-committee to hear the appeal and pass orders thereon. The period of limitation prescribed in Ext.P7 for filing an appeal is one month from the date on which the order appealed against is served on the employee. WP(C).No.19589/2009 2 3. In the instant case, Ext.P5 order was served on the petitioner on 23.1.2009 itself. Therefore, the period of limitation has expired. The petitioner has explaned the delay in filing the appeal in time by stating that aggrieved by Ext.P5 he had moved the District Labour Officer, Thrissur and that it was only when he received Ext.P6 letter dated 11.5.2009 that he became aware of the fact that he cannot raise an industrial dispute in the matter. In my opinion, since the Certified Standing Orders of the company entitle the petitioner to file an appeal challenging Ext.P5 and as a major penalty has been imposed on him, the petitioner should be given an opportunity to file an appeal from Ext.P5. I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with the direction that in the event of the petitioner filing an appeal before the Board of Directors of the first respondent company within two weeks from today, the Board of Directors shall entertain the same as one filed within time and constitute a sub committee to hear the petitioner and pass orders thereon expeditiously and in any event within four months from the date on which the appeal as directed above is presented before the Board of Directors. It is clarified that if pursuant to Ext.P5 order, any person junior to the petitioner has been promoted, such promotion will be subject to the outcome of the appeal. In other words, in the event of the petitioner succeeding in the appeal, he WP(C).No.19589/2009 3 would be entitled to all consequential benefits. The contentions of the petitioner on the merits are kept open. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge TKS