Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PRESIDENT versus D.SOMANATHAN

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


PRESIDENT v. D.SOMANATHAN - OP No. 12711 of 2003(L) [2007] RD-KL 3916 (21 February 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP No. 12711 of 2003(L)

1. PRESIDENT,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. D.SOMANATHAN,
... Respondent

2. KERALA CO-OPERATIVE MILK SOCIETIES

For Petitioner :SRI.K.HARILAL

For Respondent :SRI.M.V.MATHEW

The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH

Dated :21/02/2007

O R D E R

KURIAN JOSEPH, J.

O.P.No.12711 of 2003 Dated 21st February, 2007.

J U D G M E N T

Ext.P1 award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Alappuzha in I.D.No.8/01 is under challenge. The issue referred for adjudication reads as follows :-

"Whether Sri.D.Somanathan, Milk Collector, Valiyakuzhi Ksherolpadaka Cooperative Society Ltd. No.A 41(D) APCOS, Muttom P.O. is eligible for sales incentive on the sale of MILMA cattleshed? If so what benefit he is entitled to get?" Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner management submits that the first respondent is not entitled to the incentive since he was only a milk collector. Reference is also invited to Exts.P2 to P8. It is stated in the writ petition that though the management filed vakkalath, management failed to file written statement within time due to a communication gap between the advocate and the petitioner. In the result, the petitioner was set ex parte and the award was passed based on the oral evidence of W1 and W2. In the above circumstances and in view of the averments in the writ petition regarding the communication gap, it is only in the interests of justice that the petitioner is given an OP NO. 12711/03 2 opportunity to contest the matter on merits, by putting the petitioner on terms. Accordingly, I set aside Ext.P1 award and remit the matter to the Industrial Tribunal, Alappuzha with a direction to consider the matter afresh, after permitting the parties to adduce evidence. An award shall be passed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall pay costs to the tune of Rs.5,000/- to the first respondent within a period of one month from today. If the amount as above is not paid and the memo produced before the Tribunal within the said period, the writ petition shall stand dismised. The writ petition is disposed of as above.

KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE.

tgs

KURIAN JOSEPH, J

O.P.No.12711 of 2003 (L)

J U D G M E N T

Dated 21st February, 2007.


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.