Kerala High Court
Suresh Babu P vs Travancore Titanium Products Limited on 6 February, 2024
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 17TH MAGHA, 1945
WA NO. 1701 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)NO.30749/2018 DATED 20/06/2019
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
1 SURESH BABU P.,
AGED 58 YEARS,
RETIRED DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER(SD),
TRAVANCORE TITANIUM PRODUCTS LIMITED,
KOCHUVELI,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 021,
RESIDING AT TC 34/652,ANRA-113, ASWATHY,
VATTIYOORKAVU P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 013.
*ADDL.APPELLANTS 2 AND 3 IMPLEADED.
*2 ADDL. APPELLANT 2:T.RAMANI ,
AGED 60 YEARS
W/O.LATE SURESH BABU P.,
RESIDING AT TC 34/652,ANRA-113,
ASWATHY,VATTIYOORKAVU P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 013.
*3 ADDL APPELLANT 3:. SUMI SURESH BABU,
D/O.LATE SURESH BABU P.,
RESIDING AT TC 34/652,ANRA-113,ASWATHY,
VATTIYOORKAVU P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 013.
*ADDITIONAL APPELLANTS 2 AND 3 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER
DATED 02/09/2022 IN IA NO.1/2022 IN WA 1701/2019.
BY ADVS.
M.C.SINY
N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.)(N-24)
SMITHA S.PILLAI(K/000911/2000)
W.A.No.1701 of 2019
2
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 TRAVANCORE TITANIUM PRODUCTS LIMITED,
KOCHUVELI,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 021,
REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2 MANAGING DIRECTOR,
TRAVANCORE TITANIUM PRODUCTS LIMITED,
KOCHUVELI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 021.
3 GENERAL MANAGER(FINANCE),
TRAVANCORE TITANIUM PRODUCTS LIMITED,
KOCHUVELI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 021.
BY ADVS.
LATHA ANAND(B/O)
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON
06.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.1701 of 2019
3
AMIT RAWAL & C.S.SUDHA, JJ.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Writ Appeal No.1701 of 2019
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 06th day of February, 2024
JUDGMENT
Amit Rawal, J.
The present intra court appeal has been directed against the
particular finding of the learned Single Bench recorded in paragraph
no.7 of the judgment while allowing the writ petition of the
appellant/writ petitioner, by issuing directions to the respondents to
take up the question of grant of back-wages in respect of the period
spent by the petitioner out of service and pass the order after hearing
the petitioner.
2. Mr.Nandakumara Menon, learned senior counsel for the
appellant submitted that the observations recorded in paragraph no.7
may not be considered by the respondents for consideration of the
matter with regard to entitlement of back wages.
3. The controversy, in short, as arisen before the Single Bench
was that appellant/petitioner was not permitted to continue beyond a
particular age of 60 and was retired vide Ext.P1 order dated 31/05/2017.
The said action was assailed before this court in W.P.(C).No.19948 of
2017. This Court vide judgment dated 12/12/2017 set aside the order
and in lieu thereof, the respondents implemented the judgment of this
Court after having lost before the Division Bench vide order dated
07/06/2018 Ext.P3 and the same reads as under:
"When this appeal is taken up for consideration today,
the learned Senior Counsel, on instructions, submitted
that the appellants did not wish to pursue with the matter
any further and the appeal may be permitted to be
withdrawn. Recording the said submission, this appeal is
dismissed as withdrawn."
4. Since the appellant/petitioner has been permitted to
continue service till 31/05/2019, would obviously entitled to the wages
for the period he remained out of service. Since the said relief was
denied, had approached the Single Bench with the following prayers:
i) To issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate
writ, order or direction to quash Exhibit P8 notice issued
by the 3rd respondent on behalf of the 1st respondent
company.
ii) To declare that the petitioner is entitled for
regularization of the service period from 1.6.17 to
13.6.18 in the 1st respondent company with all
consequential service benefits including monetary
benefits.
iii) To issue a writ mandamus or other appropriate
writ, order or direction to the 1st respondent to regularize
the service period of the Petitioner from 1.6.17 to
13.6.18 with all consequential service benefits including
monetary benefits.
iv) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate
writ, order or direction to the respondents to promote the
petitioner to the post of General Manager in the 1st
respondent company with effect from the date on which
Exhibit P14 order was passed promoting the immediate
Junior of the Petitioner to the post of General Manager,
overlooking the legitimate right of the Petitioner.
v) To grant to the petitioner such other and further
reliefs that may be prayed for from time to time and this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to grant in the
circumstances of the case."
5. Learned Single Bench in Paragraph no.7 of the judgment
held as under:
"I have considered the contentions advanced. It is
apparent that this Court in Exhibit P2 judgment had
interfered with the decision of the respondents not to
extend the services of the petitioner. The decision was
found to be illegal and the same was quashed and a
reconsideration was ordered. However, this Court did not
make any observation as to the treating of the period
when the petitioner remained out of service. Exhibit P2
judgment was confirmed in Exhibit P3 and immediately
thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated. However, in view
of the fact that Exhibit P2 judgment had found that the
petitioner had been denied the benefit of extension
arbitrarily and due to discrimination as against a
scheduled caste employee, I am of the opinion that the
issue whether the petitioner would be entitled to at least
partial back wages for the period he was kept out of
service is to be considered by the respondents afresh.
Since the petitioner could not point out before this Court
that any junior of his in the direct line of promotion had
been appointed to the higher post overlooking the
petitioner's claim, I am of the opinion that the claim for
promotion as General Manager cannot be considered."
6. The apprehension expressed with regard to the observation
of partial back-wages in our view would be considered as an obiter by
reading the direction in the penultimate paragraph. It is made clear that
the respondents shall decide the controversy with regard to the full back
wages for the period the appellant/petitioner since deceased, remained
out of service, as expeditiously as possible within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order..
Appeal stands disposed of with the aforementioned clarification.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL
JUDGE
Sd/-
C.S.SUDHA
JUDGE
ak
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE SAID COMMUNICATION FROM
THE GOVERNMENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Annexure A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE KERALA
STATE COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULE CASTES AND
SCHEDULED TRIBES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN
PETITION NO.3664/A2/2017/TVPM/KSCSCST.
