Kerala High Court
Suresh Babu P vs Travancore Titanium Products Limited on 1 July, 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
Monday, the 1st day of July 2024 / 10th Ashadha, 1946
IA.NO.1/2024 IN WA NO. 1701 OF 2019
AGAINST JUDGMENT DATED 20.06.2019 IN WP(C) 30749/2018 OF THIS COURT
APPLICANTS/RESPONDENTS:
1. TRAVANCORE TITANIUM PRODUCTS
LIMITED, KOCHUVELI,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695021, REP.BY ITS MANAGING
DIRECTOR.
2. MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRAVANCORE TITANIUM PRODUCTS
LIMITED,KOCHUVELI,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695021.
3. GENERAL MANAGER(FINANCE), TRAVANCORE TITANIUM PRODUCTS LIMITED,
KOCHUVELI,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695021.
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS:
1. SURESH BABU P. , RETIRED DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER(SD), TRAVANCORE
TITANIUM PRODUCTS LIMITED, KOCHUVELI,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695021,
RESIDING AT TC 34/654,ANRA-113,ASWATHY,
VATTIYOORKAVU.P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695013.
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. SUMI SURESH BABU, D/O.LATE SURESH BABU P.,RESIDING AT TC
34/652,ANRA-113,ASWATHY,VATTIYOORKAVU P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695
013.
Application praying that in the circumstances stated in the
affidavit filed therewith the High Court be pleased to extend the time
granted to comply with the directions in the judgment dated 06.02.2024 in
WA.No.1701 of 2019, by a further period of three months from today, in the
interest of justice.
This Application coming on for orders on 01.07.2024, upon perusing
the application and the affidavit filed in support thereof, and upon
hearing the arguments of ADV.SMT.LATHA ANAND,Advocate for the Applicants,
and of SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON AND ADVS.M/S.M.C.SINY
AND SMITHA S.PILLAI, Advocates for the Respondents , the court on the same
passed the following:
AMIT RAWAL & C.S.SUDHA, JJ.
-------------------------------------------------------
I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.A. No.1701 of 2019
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of July, 2024
ORDER
Amit Rawal, J.
1. Writ petition was preferred by Suresh Babu.P. (since
deceased) being represented by legal representatives whereby
directions were issued to the respondents to take up the
question of grant of back-wages in respect of the period spent
by him out of the service and pass appropriate orders after
hearing the petitioner within a period of two months. The matter
was taken up before us in writ appeal challenging the
aforementioned direction by expressing apprehension that
partial back-wages may not be considered as obiter by reading
the direction in the penultimate paragraph. Considering the
predicament of the petitioner, we disposed of the appeal by
recording the observation in paragraph No.6 which is extracted
hereinbelow:
"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."
2. Two months' time expired in 05.03.2024, at the best
it would be mid of the march considering the time consumed in
obtaining the certified copy of the order. But till date or till the
submission of the application on 25.05.2024, there has not been
compliance and prayer has been made for enlarging the time
granted by us on the premise that the erstwhile Chairman was
on leave from 07.04.2024 to 29.04.2024 and thereafter, on
10.05.2024, was transferred. However, the new chairman has
already joined but permission is required from the Government
for sanctioning the wages as directed by the Court and
therefore, a period of three months is being sought.
Aforementioned prayer is also accompanied by separate
application seeking condonation of delay of 24 days.
3. Sri.Nandakumara Menon, Senior counsel for the
respondents submitted that the application sans merit and do
not require any concession, for, even the admitted minimum
wages have not been paid so far what to talk of the disputed
which have ultimately resulted into a direction of this Court and
prays for dismissal of the application with exemplary costs.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
appraised the paper book.
5. On perusal of the extracted portion clarifying the
direction given by the Single Bench and the contents of the
application submitted for extension of time, we are of the view
that there is no reference of the bylaws requiring the Company
to obtain the financial approval from the Government. During
the course of hearing, we asked the rough calculation of the
amount due and to be disbursed to the employees, it has been
informed that not more than Rs.15 lakhs. We are of the view
that there is lackadaisical approach on behalf of the company,
after noticing that the new Chairman has resumed almost one
and half month back, no concerted effort has been made for
compliance of the order. It is a fit case where we should have
suo motu taken the contempt, but we do not want to further
aggravate the agony of employees who are surviving on a day
to day basis. Accordingly, time is enlarged for one month with
cost of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) which shall
be condition precedent.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL, JUDGE
Sd/-
C.S.SUDHA, JUDGE
nak
01-07-2024 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
