IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 28TH MARCH 2011 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 1359 of 2009(J) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- V.CHANDRAPRASAD, 55 YEARS S/O.VASUDEVA PANICKER MILL MANAGER,(ON SUSPENSION) ALLEPPEY CO.OP.SPINNING MILLS KAREELAKULANGARA, KAYAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.KISHOR B. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES GOVERNMENT OF KERALA 2. DIRECTOR OF HANDLOOMS AND TEXTILES VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. GENERAL MANAGER, ALLEPPEY CO.OP.SPINNING MILLS, KAREELAKULANGARA, KAYAMKULAM. R3 BY ADVS. SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SANDESH RAJA FOR R1,2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 1359 of 2009(J) ----------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) 31772/2007 DT. 14.11.07 EXT.P2 : COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) 37364/2007 DT. 17.12.2007 EXT.P3 : COPY OF ENQUIRY REPORT DT. 09.04.08 EXT.P4 : COPY OF ORDER DT. 25.04.08 OF DIRECTOR OF HANDLOOMS AND TEXTILES EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DT. 22.11.08 ISSUED TO GENERAL MANAGER, ALLEPPEY COOPERATIVE SPINNING MILLS EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE REPLY DT. 30.12.08 FROM GENERAL MANAGER RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R2(a) : COPY OF THE IR.NO. HL T3/577/07 DATED 25.04.2008 EXT.R2(b) : COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 26.04.08 EXT.R3(a) : COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE SMT S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) No.1359 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was an employee of the Quilon Co-operative Spinning Mills of which the 3rd respondent is the General Manager. He filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:- “a. Quash all disciplinary proceedings threatened in Exhibit P6 reply notice against the petitioner pursuant to receipt of Exhibit P3 Enquiry Report and issue of P4 order for reinstatement by the second respondent. b. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction commanding the second respondent to re instate the petitioner in to service as Mill Manager at Alleppey Co operative Spinning Mills, Kreelakulangara with immediate effect. c. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction commanding the second respondent to pay full salary and allowances to the petitioner with admissible Dearness Allowance and other allowances on the time scale of Rs.6000-300-7500-400-9500-500-12000 with retrospective effect from 2-2-2006 and direct the Management to remit contribution towards Provident Fund and other statutory dues. d. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction commanding the first respondent to conduct an enquiry in to the fabrication of false case by Ajithkumar, who is now working at Kerala State Textile corporation and initiate suitable action.” 2. After hearing the writ petition elaborately on 10.02.2011, I passed the following interim order:- W.P.(C)No.1359 of 2009 -2- “After hearing both sides, I am inclined to allow the writ petition. I am also of the definite opinion that the third respondent is guilty of harassment of the petitioner, insofar as he has even refused to obey orders of the second respondent. That is unbecoming of a General Manager of a Government Institution. But, before passing a detailed judgment, I am inclined to give the third respondent another opportunity to redeem himself by taking appropriate action in favour of the petitioner, insofar as the petitioner is due to retire on 16/2/2011. Post on 14/2/2011. ” Subsequently on the basis of submissions made by the parties, I passed the following interim order on 14.2.2011: “The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the interim order, the third respondent has issued an order permitting the petitioner to join duty today and the petitioner has joined duty as directed.” Again on 22.02.2011, I passed the following interim order:- “Post on 21.3.2011 as the first case in the weekly hearing list at the request of the counsel for the respondents to calculate the amounts due to the petitioner and to pay the same to him.” 3. Thereafter, there was some dispute as to the amount payable to the petitioner. The learned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent submits before me that the entire amount due to the petitioner has been finally paid and all the grievances of the petitioner posed in this writ petition have been fully redressed and, therefore, recording that submission, the writ petition may be closed. It is also submitted that the 3rd respondent has no intention to take any further disciplinary action against the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner is absent. W.P.(C)No.1359 of 2009 -3- In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of recording the submission by the standing counsel for the 3rd respondent. However, if the petitioner has any grievance contrary to the submission, it would be open to the petitioner to file a petition to restore the writ petition by filing appropriate petition for the same. Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE KRK