IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J.
Santhosh P.C., S/o. N.K. Chakrapani & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The Kerala State Bevarages (Manufactoring & Marketing) Corporation Ltd. & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) Nos. 21217 of 2018, 11777 of 2021, 22806 of 2019, 30525 of 2021, 36266 of 2023, 32713 of 2019, 32987 of 2019, 33047 of 2019, 33573 of 2019, 34429 of 2019 and 35561 of 2019
Decided On : 18-11-2024
(A) Kerala State Beverages (M&M) Corporation Limited Employees Service Rules, 1986 - Circulars issued by the Managing Director regarding employee liability for stock shortages - The court found that the circulars lacked authority and violated principles of natural justice, as they did not follow the prescribed procedures in the Service Rules. (Paras 12, 14, 15, 16)
(B) Natural Justice - The court emphasized that employees must be afforded an opportunity to defend themselves before any liability is imposed, as per the Service Rules. (Paras 12, 15)
Facts of the case:
Employees challenged circulars that imposed liability for stock shortages without following due process as outlined in the Service Rules, leading to potential unjust penalties.
Findings of Court:
The circulars were declared illegal as they did not comply with the established Service Rules and principles of natural justice.
Issues: The main issues were whether the Managing Director had the authority to issue the circulars and whether the procedures prescribed by the Service Rules were followed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the circulars were invalid as they did not adhere to the procedural safeguards established in the Service Rules, which govern employee conduct and liability.
Result: The circulars were set aside, and the court declared that recovery from employees must follow the Service Rules.
JUDGMENT :
Harisankar V. Menon, J.
These writ petitions have been filed by the employees of the Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing and Marketing) Corporation Limited (for short, the “respondent Corporation”), challenging certain circulars issued by the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation as well as the steps taken on that basis.
2. The facts as culled out from W.P(C) No.32713 of 2019 are as under:
The petitioner was working as an abkari worker (Salesman) in an outlet of the respondent Corporation at Changanassery. He contends that he joined duty at the Changanassery outlet during the month of August, 2018 as a prelude for the Onam season sales. He points out that Ext.P4 complaint was presented to the Warehouse Manager, Kottayam, pointing out certain discrepancies in the stock. He further alleges that by Ext.P5 notice dated 08.05.2019, the respondent Corporation has arrived at a shortage in stock in the afore shop, and by Ext.P6 dated 01.06.2019, a liability of Rs.53,21,973/- is sought to be demanded from the petitioner as well as all others who were working in the afore shop. Ext.P6 also reveals that the Warehouse Manager was also directed to satisfy certain amounts. The petitioner points out that pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in a writ petition filed by certain other noticees in Ext.P6, this Court directed the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation to have an adjudication, and thereafter, Ext.P7 has been issued rejecting the explanations offered. The petitioner also urges that he was not heard while issuing Ext.P10. The petitioner further states in this writ petition that the proceedings as above have been taken purely on the basis of Exts.P1 to P3 circulars issued by the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation.
3. It is challenging the proceedings initiated as above, as well as the circulars issued by the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation, on the basis of which the proceedings have been taken, that the petitioners have filed the captioned writ petition.
4. A counter affidavit dated 14.11.2022 is filed by the respondent Corporation seeking to justify the steps taken as above.
5. I have heard Sri. Deepu Thankan, Sri. C.S. Ajith Prakash, Smt. V. Sethukutty Amma and Smt. Bhavana Velayudhan for the respective petitioners as also Sri. T. Naveen, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation.
6. Sri. Deepu Thankan, the learned counsel would contend that :
ii. In the light of the afore, he contends that the circulars at Exts.P1 to P3 have no legs to stand. He contends that the liability is being fixed on the employee in a summary manner.
iii. He points out that the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation is not having any power or authority to issue circulars in the nature of Exts.P1 to P3.
7. Sri. Ajith Prakash, the learned counsel would contend that :
ii. No show-cause notices were issued prior to the impugned steps.
iii. Ext.P3 circular dated 20.12.2017 brands the employees against whom steps are taken as “unscrupulous employees” engaged in stealing cash/stocks, without any sort of enquiry
M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd. and Another v. Jahan Khan
Raveendran Nair v. State of Kerala
Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others v. Smt. P. Laxmi Devi
Ramakrishnan P.K. v. Kerala State Beverages(M&M) Corporation Ltd. and Others
Circulars imposing employee liability without following prescribed procedures violate natural justice and are deemed illegal.
The Managing Director of the Corporation lacks authority to issue circulars imposing employee liabilities without adhering to disciplinary procedures outlined in the Service Rules, violating principl....
The issuance of recovery notices must comply with prescribed service rules; failure to do so renders them invalid.
The court affirmed prior rulings restricting recovery processes based solely on unchallenged circulars while clarifying adherence to established service rules.
Retired employees cannot be penalized with recovery from retiral dues without prior disciplinary proceedings being initiated during service, upholding procedural compliance under relevant regulations....
The terms and conditions of employment of both the petitioner and the respondent No.7 crystallized with the acceptance of the appointment letter dated March 25, 2013 in case of the applicant/writ pet....
The SGPC's Service Rules are statutory, making writ petitions against it maintainable; benefits can be withheld pending inquiry only if procedural compliance ensures no prejudice occurs.
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, would deal with, not merely statutory corporations, but various other employer bodies which are non statutory bodies, like registered companies/registered societies and....
A statutory corporation has the power to terminate the services of its employees under Rule 13 or Regulation 17, depending on the nature of the case. The termination of service under Rule 13 is valid....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.