Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

E.V. MATHAI, S/O. VARKEY versus KERALA ELECTRICAL AND

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


E.V. MATHAI, S/O. VARKEY v. KERALA ELECTRICAL AND - WP(C) No. 478 of 2007(F) [2007] RD-KL 1657 (22 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 478 of 2007(F)

1. E.V. MATHAI, S/O. VARKEY,
... Petitioner

2. P.V. KURIAKOSE, S/O. VARKEY,

3. P.P. MATHAI, S/O. PAULOSE,

Vs

1. KERALA ELECTRICAL AND
... Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA,

3. THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER,

For Petitioner :SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR

For Respondent :SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN, SC, KEL

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.K.DENESAN

Dated :22/01/2007

O R D E R

K.K.DENESAN, J

W.P.(C)NO. 478 of 2007

Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2007



JUDGMENT

Heard both sides. I have perused the grounds urged in the writ petition and pleadings of the first respondent in the counter affidavit.

2. Petitioners in this case are retired employees of the first respondent company. They feel aggrieved since they are denied the pay revision benefits arising out of the settlement with effect from 1.10.1999, owing to the rider that the benefits could be given only if the company makes a profit for the consecutive period of two years. But in the case of officers, the benefits were paid on the ground that there was no such stipulation. An identical issue was considered by this Court leading to judgment dated 9.7.2001 in O,P.NO.23729/1998. That was a case where the managerial staff were denied the benefit given to the workers. It was held therein that the conduct is unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminatory. In the instant case what is paid to the managerial staff is not paid to the workers. It needs no elaborate consideration to hold that the attitude is certainly discriminatory. It would even amount to hostile discrimination since the beneficial class is the upper class. Accordingly, the writ petition is W.P.(C)No.478/2007 2 disposed of directing the respondents to disburse the benefits arising out of Ext.P1 settlement, within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment, ignoring the impugned government order.

K.K.DENESAN, JUDGE

css/ W.P.(C)No.478/2007 3


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.