IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2011 / 20TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 18100 of 2006(D) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ K. SUBAIDA, D/O. THANNIKUTTY, KANDIYIL HOUSE, P.O. MAKKADA, VIA. KAKKODI, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAMADAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, KOZHIKODE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD., PUTHIYARA, KOZHIKODE-673 004. 2. THE LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE. R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI SMT.T.V.NEEMA SMT.RAGAM.S.MOHAN R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.18100/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE COMMON AWARD DATED 28/02/1997 PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE IN I.D.NOS.33/92 AND 82/1992. P2 COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 26/09/2003 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, KOZHIKODE. P3 COPY OF THE AWARD I.D.NO.6/05 PASSED BY LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE DATED 19/04/2006. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R1(A) COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 3/8/2005 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT/MANAGEMENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 18100 of 2006 ================== Dated this the 11th day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was appointed as an Attender in the 1st respondent bank on 19.9.1986 for a period of one year. According to the petitioner, subsequently, the Board of Directors of the 1st respondent bank, by resolution dated 22.8.1987, decided to confirm the petitioner in regular service of the bank along with two other Attenders viz., Sri.Vinodkumar and Smt.N.Pameela. But, in the meanwhile, the Board of Directors was discharged and the administrator, who took charge, decided to rescind the resolution of the Board of Directors. The other two workers raised two industrial disputes, in which, Ext.P1 common award was passed directing their reinstatement with continuity of service and attendant benefits, but without backwages. The petitioner sought similar reliefs. But, in the meanwhile, the bank filed O.P.No. 6986/1998 challenging Ext.P1 award. Therefore, the petitioner also raised an industrial dispute, which resulted in Ext.P3 award, holding that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. It is challenging Ext.P3 award, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. The petitioner's contention is that the petitioner is similarly placed like the workers involved in Ext.P1 award and Ext.P3 award contrary to Ext.P1 award is unsustainable. w.p.c.18100/06 2 2. I have heard the parties. 3. I find that I myself had considered O.P.No.6986/1998 filed against Ext.P1 award in favour of the other two employees and have, by judgment dated 1.3.2007, allowed the original petition filed by the management quashing Ext.P1 award holding that the workmen involved in those two industrial disputes are not entitled to any reliefs. Of course, a writ appeal viz, W.A.2066/2007, against that judgment is pending. However, insofar as the petitioner's case is identical, following the judgment in O.P.No.6986/1998, I dismiss tis writ petition. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge