Harikrishnan P vs Kannur International Airport Ltd
2022 Latest Caselaw 1861 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
     FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 29TH MAGHA, 1943
                        WP(C) NO. 24838 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:

    1       HARIKRISHNAN P
            S/O GOPINATHAN, PALAKUZHIYIL HOUSE,
            CHERUMUNDASSERIYIL.P.O,
            AMBALAPPARA VILAGE, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
            KERALA, PIN-679512.

    2       GOKUL.C.V,
            CHIRAKKARA VEETTIL HOUSE, THALIYIL.P.O, KUTTIYADI,
            KOZHIKODU, KERALA-673508.

                BY ADVS.
                   P.V.JEEVESH
                   K.R.PAUL


RESPONDENTS:

    1       KANNUR INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD
            AIRPORT P.O, MATTANUR,
            KANNUR-670708, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR.

    2       HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGER,
            KANNUR INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, AIRPORT.P.O,MATTANUR,

            KANNUR-670708.

               BY ADVS.
                  M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
                  K.JOHN MATHAI
                  JOSON MANAVALAN
                  KURYAN THOMAS
                  PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
                  RAJA KANNAN


     THIS   WRIT   PETITION   (CIVIL)   HAVING   BEEN   FINALLY   HEARD   ON
18.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C)24838/2021                     2



                              JUDGMENT

The petitioners joined the service of the first respondent as Fire

Service Trainees. At the time of joining service, they entered into

surety bond with the respondents as per which the petitioners were

bound to serve the first respondent for a minimum period of three

years after successful completion of training. The petitioners submit

that due to certain compelling personal reasons, they could not

complete the training and they were compelled to relieve the training

session. As per the bond agreement, the petitioners paid Rs.3,00,000/-

each to the first respondent for getting relieved from the training

session. The petitioners contend that since they could not complete

the training, they are not liable to make payment of the said amount.

They submitted Exts.P1 and P2 representations before the first

respondent requesting to refund the amount paid by them for getting

relieved from the training session. The grievance of the petitioners is

that the first respondent has not so far considered the said

representations. Therefore, they pray for a direction to the

respondents to consider Exts. P1 and P2 representations within a time

frame.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned

counsel for the respondents.

3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and

the submissions made at the Bar, this writ petition is disposed of

directing the competent authority among the respondents to consider

and pass orders on Exts.P1 and P2 representations within a period of

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

Sd/-

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24838/2021

PETITIONER's EXHIBITS:

Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST OF THE 1ST PETITIONER, DATED 20/3/2021.

Exhibit P2             THE TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST OF
                       THE 2ND PETITIONER, DATED 20/3/2021




spc/