IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 17TH JANUARY 2008 / 27TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 2037 of 2008(P) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- UGESH KUMAR R., AGED 34, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN, PANAVILA, ASRAMOM NORTH, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.AJAYA KUMAR. G RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSHEERA BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. MANAGER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD., KOLLAM DAIRY, THEVALLY, KOLLAM. 3. MARKETING OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD., KOLLAM DAIRY, THEVALLY, KOLLAM. 4. MAYA.A., VILAPPURATHU VEEDU, PRAKKULAM, KOLLAM, PIN: 691 602. BY SC FOR MILMA SRI. B.S. KRISHNAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J = = = ======= = = = = = W.P.(C).No. 2037 OF 2008 = = = = = ==== = = = = = = = Dated this the 17th day of January, 2008. = = = = = = = ==== == = = = = = = = = = = J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is Exts.P2 and P3 notices. From the facts it is admitted that the petitioner was employed in the premises of the 3rd respondent. 2nd and 3rd respondent became hostile towards 4th respondent. Petitioner is terminated by the 4th respondent for the reasons which are disclosed in Ext.P2. 2. The 2nd respondent found the petitioner to be undesirable to continue in their premises and therefore asked for redeployment. If as a matter of fact the worker deployed by the contractor is found to be undesirable there is absolutely nothing wrong in such a decision. In my view no such inquiry is necessary. It is for the employer to conduct inquiry. 3. Petitioner is served by Ext. P2 notice and he refers to Ext.P3. In this context, in so far as Ext.P3 is concerned, W.P.(C).No. 2037 OF 2008 2 4th respondent is the affected party and if aggrieved, it is upto them to challenge Ext.P3. I do not find any merit in the writ petition. 4. However I clarify that the 4th respondent shall take necessary steps, if the petitioner approaches for reliefs. The Writ Petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE bkn/-