KERALA STATE CONSUMER FEDN Vs ANANDAN P.K. .
Case number: C.A. No.-002943-002943 / 2010
Diary number: 366 / 2007
Advocates: ROMY CHACKO Vs
K. RAJEEV
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2943 OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.3525/2007)
KERALA STATE CONSUMER FEDERATION & ANR. Appellant(s)
:VERSUS:
ANANDAN P.K. & ORS. Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2944-2947 OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.17533-17536/2008)
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
We have heard the learned senior counsel appearing
on behalf of the parties.
Mr. Patwalia, learned senior counsel appearing on
behalf of Kerala State Consumer Federation and Mr.
Nageswara Rao, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf
of the 363 employees working in the said Federation
submit that their cases could not considered by the
Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in O.P.
No.21971/2002 and Writ Petition (C) No.25183/2005 as in
2
Writ Petition (C) No.25183/2005 filed by the unemployed
persons, the 363 employees were not parties and if the
impugned judgment dated 31.8.2006 passed by the Kerala
High Court is implemented, they are likely to lose their
employment. They have been in employment since 1997-1998.
We have gone through the impugned judgment. We
find considerable merit in the submissions of the learned
senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Federation and
the 363 employees working in the Federation. In this view
of the matter, in the interest of justice, we deem it
appropriate to set aside the impugned judgment and remit
the matter to the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. The
High Court is requested to decide the case after hearing
the parties in accordance with law.
The 363 employees who are going to be affected by
the decision of the High Court, would be at liberty to
get themselves impleaded as parties in the writ petition.
In the facts and circumstances of this case, we
request the High Court to decide the case as
expeditiously as possible, in any event, within six
months from the date of communication of this order.
These appeals are disposed of with the
3
aforementioned observation and direction.
.....................J (DALVEER BHANDARI)
.....................J (K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN)
New Delhi; March 31, 2010.