Kerala High Court
Mani N.N vs The Cochin Shipyard Ltd on 12 November, 2024
2024:KER:86556
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 13698 OF 2018
PETITIONERS:
1 MANI N.N,
AGED 67 YEARS,
S/O.LATE N.K.NARAYANAN,
NAGELI PARAMB,EDAYAKKUNNAM,
SOUTH CHITTOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM -682 027.
2 V.RAJENDRAN,
AGED 65 YEARS,
S/O.LATE GOPALAN, SURABHI,PANDARACHIRA ROAD,
CHILAVANNOOR SOUTH,KADAVANTHRA, ERNAKULAM.
3 P.K.KUNJU,
AGED 65 YEARS,
S/O.KURIAN, PULIVELIL,
KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-20.
4 VINCENT N.C.,
AGED 67 YEARS,
S/O.LATE CHEEKU, NELKUNNASSERY,
AYYAPPANKAVU, ERNAKULAM - 18.
5 JAYAPRAKASH T.,
AGED 64 YEARS,
S/O.LATE ARUMUGHAN, ATHIRA,
AR CAMP ROAD, MERIKUNNU P.O.,
KOZHIKODE - 673 012.
6 SURESHBABU A.P.,
AGED 66 YEARS,
S/O.LATE P.KRISHNAN, AISWARYA,
VIDYA NAGAR, KADAVANTHRA,
ERNAKULAM - 682 020.
BY ADVS.
SRI.A.JAYASANKAR
SRI.ASHWIN SETHUMADHAVAN
W.P.(C)No.13698 of 2018 2 2024:KER:86556
SRI.MANU GOVIND
SMT.B.MEERA BALAKRISHNAN
SRI.S.SABARINADH
RESPONDENT:
THE COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD.,
PERUMANOOR P.O., COCHIN-682 015,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR.
BY ADVS.
SMT.MARIAM MATHAI
SRI.SAJI VARGHESE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
12.11.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.13698 of 2018 3 2024:KER:86556
JUDGMENT
The petitioners were working as workmen on 31.03.2007,
the date from which, Ext.P1 Long Term Settlement was made
effective. The petitioners point out to Clause No.2.2.7 of Ext.P1-
Long Term Settlement (LTS) and contends that the benefits
thereunder, where only available to those who were on the rolls of
the respondent as a workmen on 31.03.2007 and where continuing
to be so, on the date of Ext.P1. They further submit that
fortunately/unfortunately the petitioners were in the interregnum
promoted as Supervisors and therefore on the date of Ext.P1, they
were not continuing as workman and hence not considered for the
entitlements pursuant to Clause Nos 2.2.7.
2. Though, the petitioners pointed out the alleged
anomaly to the respondent-Cochin Shipyard Ltd, it issued Ext.P5,
informing that on humanitarian grounds, the Chairman and
Managing Director has agreed to consider the rectification of
anomaly 'if any exists' in comparison to those junior Supervisors
who were extended the benefits pursuant to the afore clause.
However, there was a rider in Ext.P5 in the form of certain conditions
to be satisfied, which the petitioners were not ready to accept. They
were before this Court challenging the said conditions and by Ext.P6
W.P.(C)No.13698 of 2018 4 2024:KER:86556
judgment, this Court directed the matter to be re-considered,
without having any reference to the conditions attached to Ext.P5.
3. Resultantly, Ext.P7 series orders/communications
were issued by the respondent-Cochin Shipyard Ltd., wherein, it is
held as under:
"6. Though you have no legal right, purely on humanitarian
grounds and also having due regard to the observatins made by
the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the judgment, as a matter of
concession, it has been decided to pay you a consolidated
amount equivalent to the difference in the total emoluments
drawn by Mr.Abraham Thomas and yourself, in the pay scale of
workman during the period from 01.04.2007 to 15.07.2009,
within a period of two months. You may collect the above
amount on receipt of intimation in this regard."
4. It is challenging the afore findings in Ext.P7 series
that the petitioners have approached this Court by the captioned
writ petition.
5. I have heard Sri. Manu Govind, the learned counsel
for the petitioner and Sri.Saji Varghese T.U., the learned Standing
Counsel for the respondents herein.
6. The essential dispute in this writ petition is as
regards the findings extracted above, with reference to Ext.P7
series. Sri.Manu Govind, the learned counsel, with reference to the
table forming part of the reply affidavit vehemently to impress upon
W.P.(C)No.13698 of 2018 5 2024:KER:86556
this Court as regards the anomaly pointed out by the petitioners as
above.
7. However, I notice that the interpretation is
essentially with reference to the provisons of Clause 2.2.7 referred in
Ext.P1. The fact that the petitioners were not continuing as
workmen, as on the date of signing of Ext.P1 is not in dispute. When
that be so, there cannot be any dispute with respect to the fact that
the findings in Ext.P7 or for the matter, the findings in Ext.P5 cannot
be considered to be any sort of admission regarding the anomally
pointed out by the petitioners. A reading of Ext.P7 as well as Ext.P5
would show that the resondent-Shipyard had decided to extend
certain benefits purely as a humanitarian gesture and that by itself
would not confer any right on the petitoners to contend that the
lumpsum payments effected as above are also be reckoned for the
purpose of pay fixation.
8. In such circumstances, while finding that the
petitioners are not be entitled for the releifs prayed for in this writ
petition. I permit the peitioners to file an apropriate representation
with the respondent herein, pointing out the afore facts and figures,
as also the manner in which, they unfortunately fell out of the
consideration zone in Clause 2.2.7 in which event, the respondent
W.P.(C)No.13698 of 2018 6 2024:KER:86556
would consider the aforesaid grievence, with notice and opportunity
to the petitioner herein. This Court hopes that the respondents
herein would be sympathetic while considering the afore contentions
to be raised by the petitioners.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
HARISANKAR V. MENON
JUDGE
ANA
W.P.(C)No.13698 of 2018 7 2024:KER:86556
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13698/2018
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT-P1: A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LONG TERM
SETTLEMENT DATED 31.03.2010 ENTERED
BETWEEN THE RESPONDENT AND ITS WORKMEN.
EXHIBIT-P2: A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
25.06.2013 IN W.P.(C) NO.26801/2012.
EXHIBIT-P3: A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION
NO.PERL/4(83)/90 DATED 26.08.2013 ISSUED
BY THE RESPONDENT REJECTING THE CASE OF
THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT-P4: A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED
19.10.2013 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P5: A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COPY OF THE
COMMUNICATION NO.PERL/4/(83)/90 DATED
06.12.2013 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT-P6: A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
07.04.2017 IN W.P.(C) NO.7076 OF 2014.
EXHIBIT-P7: A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED
12.10.2017 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE
1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT-P7(A): A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED
12.10.2017 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE
2ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT-P7(B): A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED
12.10.2017 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE
3RD PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT-P7(C): A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED
12.10.2017 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE
4TH PETITIONER.
W.P.(C)No.13698 of 2018 8 2024:KER:86556
EXHIBIT-P7(D): A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED
12.10.2017 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE
5TH PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT-P7(E): A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED
12.10.2017 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE
6TH PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT-P8: A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION
NO.PERL/4(83)/90 DATED 12.12.2017 ISSUED
BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT-P8(A): A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION
NO.PERL/4(83)/90 DATED 12.12.2017 ISSUED
BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT-P8(B): A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION
NO.PERL/4(83)/90 DATED 12.12.2017 ISSUED
BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT-P8(C): A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION
NO.PERL/4(83)/90 DATED 12.12.2017 ISSUED
BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT-P8(D): A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION
NO.PERL/4(83)/90 DATED 12.12.2017 ISSUED
BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT-P8(E): A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION
NO.PERL/4(83)/90 DATED 12.12.2017 ISSUED
BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE 6TH PETITIONER.
