Kerala High Court
Hantex Officers Association vs Hantex Officers Association on 17 October, 2005
Author: C.N. Ramachandran Nair
Bench: C.N.Ramachandran Nair
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM
TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2012/1ST JYAISHTA 1934
WA.No. 86 of 2006 ( )
-----------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN RP.202/2004 IN O.P.34265/02 DATED 17-10-2005
APPELLANT(S)/FIRST RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN O.P.:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HANTEX OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
(AFFILIATED TO THE KERALA STATE PUBLIC
UNDERTAKING & CO-OPERATIVE OFFICER'S ASSOCIATION)
OOTTUKUZHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1, REP. BY
THE SECRETARY, SRI. S.ABDUL HALIM.
BY ADV. SRI.V.SANTHARAM
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS IN THE REWIEW
PETITION/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 IN THE OP:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,
TRIVANDRUM.
2. KERALA STATE HANDLOOM WEAVERS
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., REG.NO.H-332, P.B.NO.64
TRIVANDRUM, REP. BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
HANTEX BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM.
3. N.VIMALAN,
S/O. NARAYANAN,
FORMER ADDL. DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE,
SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.
4. PAUL K. KANNEL,
S/O. G.KUNJUNNI, RESIDING AT T.O.13/1827
MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., TRIVANDRUM.
MJL
WA.NO:86/2006
R1 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.LIJU STEPHEN
R2 BY SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN
SMT.ANITHA MATHAI MUTHIRENTHY
R4 BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM
SRI.P.FAZIL
BY SRI.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA, SC, HANTEX
BY SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-05-2012,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MJL
C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
&
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.
-------------------------------------------------
W.A No. 86 OF 2006
-------------------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF MAY, 2012
J U D G M E N T
Ramachandran Nair, J:
This writ appeal is filed against judgment in the Review petition whereunder this court recalled earlier judgment and issued direction to the respondent society to implement pay revision based on Government orders and not based on the proceedings of the Board of Directors of the Society, which was passed at the instance of the 4th respondent who was a beneficiary of the pay revision. Since the original petition was disposed of based on wrong facts submitted in court about the Board's decision to implement pay revision against Government orders, the single Judge allowed the Review and recalled the judgment. The Society of which the appellants are the employees had accumulated loss of around 70 lakhs in 2002-2003 and there was express prohibition against implementation pay revision in loss W.A No.86/2006 -2- making Societies. Contrary to Government orders the then Managing Director got the board approved pay revision and implemented the same in 1998. This Court found that action is called for against the 4th respondent and disciplinary proceedings are initiated by the Government. Inspite of the disentitlement of pay revision on account of the heavy losses being sustained by the society the single judge approved the pay revision implemented from 1998- 2004. The appellant's prayer in the writ appeal is for restoring the pay revision originally granted to them. We do not think this court is competent to order the pay revision retrospectively. It is purely within the powers of the society to recommend and the Registrar and the Government to approve or reject it. We do not know how the society which was huge accumulated loss can source funds for implementing pay revision. However, since Hantex is a society under the control of the Government it is for the Government to find a way to ensure that fair wages are paid to employees. Since pay revision involved in the case is of W.A No.86/2006 -3- the year 1998, we feel circumstances and performance of the society thereafter should be considered while considering pay revision to the employees. In fact pay structure would certainly have been changed in the course of last 12 years. We therefore feel that the matter has become infructuous as of now. Accordingly we dispose of the writ appeal directing the 2nd respondent to consider eligibility for pay revision depending on financial position and liquidity of the society and guidelines issued by the Registrar and the Government.
Sd/-
C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.
Sd/-
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
AMG True copy P.A to Judge