IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2009 / 5TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 38989 of 2003(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ 1. M.G.SASIKUMAR, DY. MARKETING MANAGER I/C, COIRFED, HEAD OFFICE, ALEPPY. 2. K.BABURAJAN PILLAI, SRM, GRADE I, MARKETING DIVISION, COIRFED, HEAD OFFICE, ALEPPY. BY ADV. SRI.K.G.BALASUBRAMANIAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE COIRE MARKETING FEDERATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, ALEPPY. 2. M VIJAYAN, BUSINESS MANAGER IN CHARGE, COIRFED, ALEPPY. 3. P.RAVINDRAN, MANAGER, COIRFED CENTRAL STORE, ALEPPY. 4. K.K.ROSH, SHOW ROOM MANAGER, COIRFED, THIRUR, MALAPPURAM DT. 5. P.S.RAJIVAN, MANAGER, COIRFED, REGIONAL OFFICE, KOLLAM. 6. C.SUDHAKARAN, MANAGER, COIRFED, REGIONAL OFFICE, KOLLAM 7. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR FOR COIR DEVELOPMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 8. THE SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.K.KARTHIKEYA PANICKER FOR R2TO6 SMT.DAYA K. PANICKER FOR R2 TO 6 SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN, SC, COIRFED FOR R1 SRI.GEORGE MATHEW FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.38989/03 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF GO NO.CS2/9675/01 DT 8.10.2002 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 26.10.02 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONERS BEFORE 8TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT 11.8.2003 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENTS/STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY PETITIOENRS BEFORE 8TH RESPONDENT DT 28.8.2003. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF GO(RT) NO.1183/03/ID DT 12.11.2003 OF THE 8TH RESPONDENT. EXTS. OF R2 EXT.R2(a): TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF SENIORITY LIST DT 27.10.1979 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.R2(b): TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF PROVISIONAL SENIORITY LIST DT 1/7/1996 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.R2(c): TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF MINUTES DT 12.6.2001. EXT.R2(d): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E1/160.2152 DT 25.9.2001 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 38989 OF 2003 (N) ===================== Dated this the 26th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P1, P3 and P5 and the main grievance is against Exts.P1 and P5. 2. Petitioners and respondents 2 to 6 are presently employed under the 1st respondent. They all had entered service of separate industrial societies, which were all amalgamated and the 1st respondent society was formed. Such amalgamation was in 1979. 3. After the amalgamation, seniority list of the employees were published, for the first time, on 8/7/2001. It is stated that the party respondents herein, objected to the seniority and on the directions issued by this Court in OP 32902/01, the 2nd respondent considered their objections and issued Ext.P1 finalising the seniority. The petitioners were aggrieved by Ext.P1 and they filed Ext.P2 appeal before the 7th respondent. During its pendency, following Ext.P1 seniority list, postings were ordered by Ext.P3. Later on, their appeal was considered by the 7th respondent and Ext.P5 order was issued rejecting the contentions. It is in this WPC 38989/03 :2 : background the writ petition is filed. 4. Impugning the seniority assigned to respondents 2 to 6, counsel for the petitioners contended that irrespective of their earlier entry in the service of the industrial societies as compared to the petitioners, as they had lost seniority on account of various disciplinary proceedings against them, they should be deemed to be juniors to the petitioners. It is stated that by Ext.P4, this contention was urged and supporting materials were produced before the 7th respondent, and that the 7th respondent has not adverted to their contentions. It is on this basis, the petitioner impugns Exts.P1 and P5. Even if there were proceedings against the aforesaid respondents, unless those proceedings have resulted in forfeiture of their seniority, the respondents are entitled to carry their seniority in full. However, a reading of Ext.P4 relied on by the petitioners to contend that the respondents 2 to 6 are not entitled to seniority over them shows that none of the proceedings have resulted in the forfeiture of the seniority of the aforesaid respondents. 5. Therefore, petitioners have not succeeded in establishing that the respondents have lost their seniority in WPC 38989/03 :3 : service, for the petitioners to claim seniority over respondents 2 to 6. If that be so, the petitioners have not made out a case for interference with Exts.P1 or P5. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp