IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY THURSDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1932 WA.No. 1892 of 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.19202/2009 Dated 25/06/2010 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: -------------- S.RAMESHAN, S/O. SEKHARAN, ABKARI WORKER, FL-1 SHOP NO.02008 (26), KOTTAMUKKU, KOLLAM, RESIDING AT UDAYAMANGALAM, CHITTAYAM, INCHAVILA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING), CORPORATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE MANAGER, KERALA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LTD., WAREHOUSE, KARICODE, KOLLAM. 3. THE INTERNAL AUDITOR, KERALA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LTD., WAREHOUSE, KARICODE, KOLLAM. 4. JUSTIN RAJ, ABKARI WORKER, FL-1 SHOP NO.02008(26), KOTTAMUKKU, KOLLAM, RESIDING AT PULITHOTTATHU KIZHAKKETHIL VAYALIL VEEDU, MUNDAKKAL P.O., KOLLAM. 5. SADANANDAN, ABKARI WORKER, FL-1 SHOP NO.02008(26), KOTTAMUKKU, KOLLAM, RESIDING AT KANIYAMKUNNATHU VEEDU, SINDHU BHAVAN, EAST KALLADA P.O., KOLLAM. 6. K.S.SHIBU, ABKARI WORKER, FL-1 SHOP NO.02008(26), KOTTAMUKKU, KOLLAM, RESIDING AT SANTHA VILASOM, KILIKOLLOOR P.O., KOLLAM-4. 7. ABDUL MANAF, ABKARI WORKER, FL-1 SHOP NO.02008(26), KOTTAMUKKU, KOLLAM, RESIDING AT KOCHERATHU VEEDU, EDAVATTOM, VELLIMON P.O., KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER, SC FOR R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. .................................................................... Writ Appeal No.1892 of 2010 .................................................................... Dated this the 11th day of November, 2010. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Appeal is filed against judgment of the learned Single Judge upholding the demand raised by the first respondent for recovery of loss caused to the Corporation. During inspection, substantial stock of liquor was found missing and consequently the loss suffered by the Corporation was worked at Rs.3,36,378/-. Under the norms, the loss is recovered from employees in the proportion stated in the judgment. The appellant's grievance is that while apportioning the loss among the employees, casual employees were excluded. The learned Single Judge found that there is a rational basis in excluding casual workers who are not on the regular rolls of the Corporation. We do not find anything wrong with the finding of the learned Single Judge because casual employees can at any time leave the employment under the first respondent. It was the responsibility of the regular employees to ensure that loss is not caused not only by them, but also by the casual 2 employees working with them. We do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge BHABANI PRASAD RAY Judge pms