High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2010-05-24Writ petition allowed; Ext.P3 quashed; bank may...

P.K. Sugathan and others v. Geetha Ramachandran and Kerala Women's Commission

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.1498/09

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan
Judgment Date: 2010-05-24
Court Decision / Holding: Ext.P3 is quashed; writ petition allowed; the court clarifies that the judgment does not bar the bank from pursuing relief through proper channels.
Final Disposition: Writ petition allowed; Ext.P3 quashed; bank may pursue relief under proper channels.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

P.K. Sugathan
N.R. Achan
P.C. Varghese
P.V. Rajan
K.K. Vivekanandan
C.J. Jacon
Venkittaraman

Respondents

Geetha Ramachandran
Kerala Women’s Commission

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri.B.S. Krishnan, Senior Advocate
• Sri.K. Anand
• SMT. Latha Krishnan

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri.T.A. Shaji

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition challenges an order of the Kerala Women’s Commission that quashed a bank’s disciplinary action against a senior officer of Catholic Syrian Bank and directed reinstatement. The petitioners, seven bank officials, challenge the Commission’s jurisdiction to review internal disciplinary proceedings of a scheduled bank and to substitute its own findings for those of the bank’s intra-institutional process. The court recalls that a supervisor in a scheduled bank is not a ‘workman’ and Labour Court jurisdiction cannot be invoked; the remedy lies in a civil court. However, the Commission, under the Kerala Women’s Commission Act, assumed authority to probe alleged unfair practice on grounds of sex and to direct the bank to remedy the situation, effectively reviewing findings of the bank’s proceedings. The court notes the Commission’s conclusion that the dismissal amounted to sex-based unfair practice, which the petitioners contend is beyond its remit and inconsistent with due process. Relying on the Federal Bank Ltd v Sagar Thomas decision, the court holds that the Commission’s order Ext.P3 is without jurisdiction and arbitrarily framed, and must be quashed. The order clarifies that the judgment will not prevent the first respondent from pursuing relief through proper channels. The writ petition is allowed accordingly, with the court emphasizing the primacy of statutory jurisdiction and the limitation on the Commission’s remit in matters of bank discipline.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 15 of the Constitution of IndiaKerala Women’s Commission Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Labour Court jurisdiction does not extend to supervisory cadre employees of scheduled banks; civil remedy available in appropriate courts.
Arbitrariness and perversity cited as grounds in review of administrative actions.
Unfair practice based on sex under constitutional principles (Article 15) and gender-discrimination considerations.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Counsel for the petitioners contends that the Kerala Women’s Commission had no jurisdiction to examine, review or quash an intra-institutional disciplinary decision of a scheduled bank. Ext.P3 violates the statutory remit of the Kerala Women’s Commission Act and sits outside its authority, as the matter concerns service discipline, not gender justice. Relying on Federal Bank Ltd v Sagar Thomas, it is argued that the Labour Court is not the proper forum for supervisory cadre employees of scheduled banks, and the remedy lies in a competent civil court. The Commission’s finding of sex-based unfair practice is argued to be outside its remit and contrary to due process. The petitioners urge quashing Ext.P3 and allowing civil remedies, including reinstatement or other permissible relief, without prejudice to the bank’s actions. The argument emphasizes adherence to jurisdictional boundaries and protection of due process in internal disciplinary proceedings.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents contend that the Commission acted within its statutory mandate to examine alleged unfair practices on grounds of sex in the agency’s inquiry into the employee’s dismissal. Ext.P3 was not a mere intra-institutional rebuke but an inquiry into potential sex discrimination under constitutional principles, warranting consideration of relief to address gender equity. The counsel points to the ‘request’ to reinstate as part of corrective action and argues the Commission’s findings are within its remit under the Kerala Women’s Commission Act, to prevent discrimination and ensure equality under Article 15 of the Constitution. The respondents request that Ext.P3 be sustained or remitted for further appropriate proceedings, preserving the bank’s disciplinary framework while protecting the employee’s rights under law.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas	2003 (3) KLT 876	Positive	The judgment relies on this decision to support the proposition that a supervisory cadre employee of a scheduled bank is not within Labour Court jurisdiction; remedy lies in civil court.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against P.K. Sugathan and others v. Geetha Ramachandran and Kerala Women's Commission and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2010 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 1498 of 2009(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): - --------------- 1. MR. P.K. SUGATHAN, DEPUTY ZONAL MANAGER, CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD., ZONAL OFFICE, ANI SEETHAI HALL, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI 600 006, 2. MR. N.R. ACHAN, (FORMER CHAIRMAN CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD.,), NADUVATH SREE SATYA SAI ENCLAVE, PUTHOOR, PALAKKAD. 3. MR. P.C. VARGHESE, (FORMER SPL. OFFICER CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD.,) POTTOKKARAN HOUSE, ELINJIPRA, THRISSUR 680 721. 4. MR. P.V. RAJAN, CHIEF MANAGER, CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD., CIRCLE OFFICE, MARKET ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 5. MR. K.K. VIVEKANANDAN, (FORMER PRINCIPAL, CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK, LTD., 6/658, KALATHIL HOUSE, KUNDUVARA ROAD, CHEMBUKKAVU, THRISSUR 20. 6. MR. C.J. JACON, DGM, CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD., HEAD OFFICE, ST. MARY'S COLLEGE ROAD, THRISSUR 680 020 7. MR. VENKITTARAMAN, CHAIRMAN CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD., HEAD OFFICE, ST. MARY'S COLLEGE ROAD, THRISSUR 680 020 BY ADV. SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN WPC.1498/09 2 RESPONDENT(S): - --------------- 1. GEETHA RAMACHANDRAN, (FORMER CHIEF MANAGER OF THE CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK), 39/3482 REVATHY, MANIKKATHU CROSS ROAD, VALANJAMBALAM, KOCHI -16. 2. KERALA WOMEN'S COMMISSION, VAN ROSS - JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -34. ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **APPENDIX IN WPC.1498/09** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS** : - EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 17.12.07 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ## RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: - EXT.R1(b): TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 9.2.2009 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN. - EXT.R1(c): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25.2.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ ## **THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.** ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.1498 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------Dated this the 24[th] day of May, 2010 ## **JUDGMENT** - 1.The first respondent was an employee of the Catholic Syrian Bank which is a scheduled bank. She faced disciplinary proceedings on different grounds. Ultimately, she was removed from service. Being an employee in the administration of the supervisory cadre of a scheduled bank, she could not have invoked the jurisdiction of the labour court, she not being a workman or even in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the decision in **Federal Bank Ltd** . v. **Sagar Thomas** [2003 (3) KLT 876]. But, she could have sued the bank challenging the decision before the competent civil court - 2.The first respondent, without seeking remedy as noticed above, moved the Kerala Women's Commission constituted under the provisions of the Kerala Women's Commission Act WPC.1498/09. 2 and sought relief. The Commission, going by its order Ext.P3, virtually sat as if it is making a judicial review of the decision of the bank. The alleged occurrences or otherwise, and the sustainability of the findings in the disciplinary proceedings, including enquiry, have been enquired into by the Commission. The allegation against the delinquent first respondent were in the realm of financial improprieties, though her learned counsel says that they were not of huge magnitude. Whatever that be, there is no attribute against her by the management which would tend to suggest that the fact that the respondent is a lady had anything to do at all, either as regards the charges or regarding the findings. - 3.However, taking the view that the disciplinary proceedings are vitiated and bad, the Commission says that the first respondent was the only lady Chief Manager in the service of the Catholic Syrian Bank and therefore, it appears that the Commission took the view that the bank imposed the punishment of WPC.1498/09. 3 dismissal from service simply on the reason that she seems to be a lady. Arbitrariness, perversity and other grounds on which this finding of the Commission is attacked necessarily stands. Equally, the finding of the Commission that the orders of dismissal is clear discrimination on the ground of sex on the basis of Article 15 of the Constitution is totally misconceived. The Commission was totally without authority to say that the first respondent was an asset to the Catholic Syrian Bank for about 30 years. The jurisdiction of the Commission in terms of the Act and the sweep of its powers or need for its institutional existence would not take within their sweep, matters which are purely in the realm of service discipline, labour matters etc, unless of course, in cases where the women employee faced situation of unfair practice referable to a ground of sex. The conclusion of the Commission that the dismissal of the first respondent from service of the bank is an unfair practice against her on the ground of sex is wholly unfounded, unsustainable and is hence liable to be quashed. WPC.1498/09. 4 4.Faced with the aforesaid situation, learned counsel for the first respondent stated that the Commission had only requested the Board of Directors of the bank to reinstate the employee after setting aside the decision of the intra-institutional appellate authority. But, a reading of the last paragraph of the impugned Ext.P3 would show that though the word 'request' is used, the immediate supporting reason in the same sentence is that the said request is being made as all the charges levelled against the officer are baseless and are wrong and without any bonafides. Having found that the impugned action is wholly without jurisdiction, Ext.P3 is quashed, however, clarifying that this judgment will not stand in the way of the first respondent seeking any relief from the bank in relation to the action taken against her. Obviously, neither this judgment nor the impugned decision of the Commission would stand in the way WPC.1498/09. 5 of the bank considering any request of the first respondent as the case may be. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. Sd/- **THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge.** kkb.31/05.