IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2009 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 35020 of 2009(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- S.JAYAKUMAR, FOREMAN, CRUMB RUBBER FACTORY, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE RUBBER MARKETING FEDERATION LTD., CHENAPPADY P.O., KANJIRAPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.K.A.BALAN SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SRI.S.A.ANAND SRI.JOVY GEORGE VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE RUBBER MARKETING FEDERATION LTD., GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI- PIN-695 020, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE RUBBER MARKETING FEDERATION LTD., GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI- PIN-695 020. 3. THE FACTORY MANAGER, CRUMB RUBBER FACTORY, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE RUBBER MARKETING FEDERATION LTD., CHENAPPADY P.O., KANJIRAPALLY-686 520. ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1-R3 SMT.SARITHA DAVID CHUNKATH FOR R1-R3 SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI FOR R1-R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.35020 OF 2009 (V) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a Foreman, who was working in the Crumb Rubber Factory of the first respondent situated at Chenappady P.O., Kanjirapally Taluk. According to the petitioner, the company was under lock out from 1.6.2009 and the lock out was lifted and the factory was reopened only on 20.7.2009. 2. During this period, petitioner went to Agartala and according to the petitioner while at Agartala he fell ill and for that reason he could not report for duty when the Factory was reopened. He returned from Agartala only by November, 2009. It is stated that during the period of his absence he had sent Ext.R3(a) Medical Certificate issued by the Doctor certifying his illness and recommending rest till 12.9.2009. It is stated that though the petitioner had applied for medical leave till 21.11.2009, he reported for duty on 16.11.2009 producing a fitness certificate. However, it is complained that the 3rd respondent did not admit the petitioner to duty on the ground that he wanted permission of the WPC.No. 35020/09 :2 : Head Office. Petitioner submits that thereupon he filed Ext.P2 representation before the Managing Director of the first respondent but there was no response and therefore the writ petition is filed. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, where it is stated that the petitioner had initially produced Ext.R2(a) certificate. It is stated that on reporting for duty on 16.11.2009 petitioner produced Ext.R2(b) certificate. It is stated that, though Ext.R2(b) produced was a copy of Ext.R2(a), there was some variation with the original and therefore the petitioner was asked to produce a proper certificate. It is stated that the petitioner did not produce any certificate as directed and it was therefore that he was not admitted to duty. Petitioner has filed a reply affidavit where he denied the allegations raised by the respondents in the counter affidavit. 4. It is to be noticed that the respondents have no case that any disciplinary proceedings has been initiated against the petitioner on the ground of either unauthorised absence or for having produced any fabricated certificate. In such a situation, when the petitioner reported for duty, he was entitled to have been WPC.No. 35020/09 :3 : admitted in duty. Therefore, as at present, in the absence of any such proceedings, the respondents have to admit the petitioner to duty with effect from 16.11.2009. This the respondent shall do as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within four weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. However, the direction in this judgment shall be without prejudice to the rights the respondents to initiate any action, in case any misconduct has been committed by the petitioner. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No. 35020/09 :4 :