Babu Sebastian vs Plantation Corporation Of Kerala ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 18536 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
 WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 17TH BHADRA, 1943
                      WP(C) NO. 16336 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

     1       BABU SEBASTIAN
             AGED 53 YEARS
             S/O DEVASSYKUTTY,
             RESIDING AT THIRUTHANATHIL HOUSE, MANJAPRA P O,
             MARYGIRI,
             ERNAKULAM-683581.

             BY ADVS.
             P.G.JAYASHANKAR
             REVATHY P. MANOHARAN
             P.K.RESHMA (KALARICKAL)
             S.RAJEEV

RESPONDENTS:

     1       PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD.
             MUTTAMBALAM P.O, KOTTAYAM, KERALA-688004,
             REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

     2       MANAGING DIRECTOR
             PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD,
             MUTTAMBALAM P.O, KOTTAYAM, KERALA-688004.

     3       MANAGER
             ATHIRAPPALLY ESTATE,
             PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD,
             KALADY PLANTATION P.O-683581.

             BY ADV N.RAJESH, SC

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   08.09.2021,   THE   COURT    ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 16336 OF 2021
                                  2




                           JUDGMENT

Dated this the 08th day of September, 2021

The petitioner claims that there is discriminatory

treatment by the first respondent Plantation Corporation

in granting various benefits, including leave and medical

benefits to the petitioner and the identically situated

officers and staff of various estates of respondent

Corporation. Stating this and pointing out the alleged

discriminatory treatment based on Ext.P2 and Ext.P3,

representations were made to the second respondent as

Ext.P4 and Ext.P5. The limited relief sought by the

petitioner at the time of hearing was that the second

respondent may be directed to dispose of Ext.P4 and

Ext.P5 representations as expeditiously as possible.

2. Opposing the application, the learned Standing

Counsel for the P14lantation Corporation pointed out that

though the petitioner alone has come up with the

grievance, the pleadings are, as if, he represents the

entire employees, officers and staff of the Plantation WP(C) NO. 16336 OF 2021

Corporation. It is only an individual grievance, it was

submitted. It was also submitted by the learned Counsel

that being a policy decision it has to be taken at the level

of the Board of Directors with the concurrence and

approval of Government of Kerala.

3. However, recording these objections, I am

inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition itself by directing

the second respondent to consider Ext.P4 and Ext.P5

representations and to dispose it of, after giving a

reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner

either physically or if not possible, virtually, as

expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of

two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS

JUDGE SKP/8-9 WP(C) NO. 16336 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16336/2021

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 20.04.2021 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY FURNISHED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, ATHIRAPALLY ESTATE DATED 04.05.2021.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY FURNISHED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, PLANTATION CORPORATION'S HEAD OFFICE DATED 08.06.2021.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25.06.2021 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 08.03.2021 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE