Kerala High Court
P.K. Prasannakumar vs The Managing Director on 12 August, 2014
Author: P.R.Ramachandra Menon
Bench: P.R.Ramachandra Menon
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAYOF AUGUST 2014/21ST SRAVANA, 1936
W.P.(C).No. 17862 of 2014 (G)
------------------------------------
PETITIONER:
P.K. PRASANNAKUMAR, AGED 58 YEARS
S/O.LATE P.A.KRISHNAN, SENIOR ENGINEER
HMT IV (MACHINE TOOLS LIMITED) KALAMASSERY
RESIDING AT PARAPPATT HOUSE, 32/1292 - C PADIVATTOM
COCHIN -24.
BY ADVS.SRI.N.SUKUMARAN (SR.)
SRI.P.V.MOHANAN
RESPONDENTS:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
HMT MACHINE TOOLS LIMITED, 59, BELLARI ROAD
BANGALORE -560 032.
Addl.2. GENERAL MANAGER
HMT MACHINE TOOLS LIMITED, HMT COLONY.P.O.
KALAMASSERY,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT -683 503.
(Additional R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED14/07/2014 IN IA 9473/2014.)
R1 BY ADV.SMT.MARIAM MATHAI
BY SRI.SAJI VARGHESE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-08-2014, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 17862 of 2014 (G)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:
P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSFER ORDER MTK/HRM/4228 DT.31.5.14
P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.05.7.14
P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSFER POLICY ADOPTED BY THE HMT MACHINE
TOOLS LIMITED
P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE OM F NO. 28034/9/2009-ESTT(A) DT.20.09.09
P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 20/14 DT.02.7.14
P6- TRUE EXTRACT OF THE HMT LIMITED CONDUCT, DISCIPLINE AND APPEAL
RULES.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
NIL.
// TRUE COPY //
P.A. TO JUDGE
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C)No.17862 OF 2014
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 12th day of August, 2014
JUDGMENT
Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P5 proceedings dated 2.7.2014 whereby the petitioner, who is serving as a Senior Engineer in the unit of the first respondent company at Kalamassery stands transferred to the HMT Machine Tools Division at Ajmer in the State of Rajasthan.
2. Heard Sri.N.Sukumaran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Saji Varghese, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the company.
3. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 23.7.2014, petitioner submitted that he was ready to resign from the service because of the very short span remaining in his career, as he was to retire from the post by the end of May 2014. The submission was recorded and the petitioner was granted time to submit the letter of resignation. The said order reads as follows:
"Admit. Sri.Saji Varghese, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the respondents.
W.P.(C)No.17862 OF 2014 : 2 :
2. Heard learned counsel on both sides. Perused the records. I have also taken note of the submission made by Sri.N.Sukumaran, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner is prepared to resign from service as per ruels in force for the reason that a transfer to Ajmer at this stage when he has hardly ten months to retire, will cause serious prejudice to him. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner should be given time to tender his resignation from the Kalamassry Unit."
3. There will accordingly be an interim order as prayed for for a period of one month.
The petitioner shall within one week from today tender his resignation and the competent authority among the respondents shall within one week from the date of receipt of the letter of resignation, take an appropriate decision thereof in accordance with the relevant rules.
Post after two weeks.
Handover."
4. Subsequently, the petitioner has filed I.A.No.10193/2014 pointing out that the submission made from his part on 23.7.2014 was a mistake and he came to understand that, if he tendered resignation, the 'past service' would not be considered for payment of service benefits. In the said circumstances, petitioner filed another application for granting 'Voluntary Retirement' as envisaged under Clause 24(2) of the HMT Limited Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules. As per the said Clause, an employee may, at any time after completing the age of 50 years, voluntarily retire by giving one month's notice in writing. A copy W.P.(C)No.17862 OF 2014 : 3 : of the Rules is produced as Ext.P6.
5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent company submits that the idea put forth by the petitioner is wrong and misconceived. The company was taking necessary steps to consider and pass appropriate orders on the application proposed to be submitted for resignation and it was at this point that the petitioner sought permission to tender application seeking 'Voluntary Retirement' which the company found it very difficult to be acceded it. According to learned Standing Counsel, the apprehension expressed from the part of the petitioner with regard to the 'loss of service benefits' is quite wrong and unfounded. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the service in the respondent company is not a pensionable service and that the petitioner,as in the case of any other employee of the establishment, is entitled to get PF and gratuity. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner sought for relief from the last month/July, but he is still continuing, without any legally redressable cause of action.
Writ petition is disposed of, declining interference with regard to Ext.P5 order. However, if the petitioner submits an application for W.P.(C)No.17862 OF 2014 : 4 : resignation as already stated before this Court, within 'ten days', the same shall be considered safeguarding the interest of the petitioner with regard to the service benefits legally payable to him and appropriate orders shall be passed thereon forthwith. It is made clear that the present position will continue till the finalisation of the above proceedings.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, Judge jes