Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Judge, J
L.SHAN PRASAD – Appellant
Versus
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner terminated based on salary-related cost ratio. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. failure of appellate authority to consider improved performance. (Para 4 , 5 , 10) |
| 3. mandatory termination provisions must not be arbitrary. (Para 12 , 14) |
| 4. decision to reinstate petitioner with partial back wages. (Para 18 , 19) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is before this Court in the second round of litigation, complaining about certain proceedings taken against him by the respondent-Corporation pursuant to which he has been terminated from service.
2. The petitioner was appointed as an Apprentice Development OfÏcer during 2007 and upon successful completion of the training, he was appointed as the Probationary Development OfÏcer and later upon successful completion of the probation, he was appointed as a Development OfÏcer at Podanur, during 2009. During 2011, the petitioner stood transferred on his own request to the Thrissur Division- the Palakkad Branch, as seen from Ext.P4.
3. Later, Ext.P5 show cause notice came to be issued, essentially alleging that with respect to the salary received by the petitioner in comparison to the premium obtained on his behalf by the Corporation, the ratio pr
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
