0

Kerala High Court uphold employee’s safety rights on WhatsApp group

Kerala High Court uphold employee’s safety rights on WhatsApp group

BACKGROUND

Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. employed the petitioner-technician (FACT).
On July 31, 2019, he was suspended on two counts of disseminating false information through the WhatsApp group and entering a restricted place without authorization after sharing the controversial texts.  The petitioner’s acts, according to the corporation, broke safety regulations and damaged the company’s reputation.  The corporation acknowledged the petitioner’s apology and expressed regret. He eventually found out, though, that the company’s punishment was a formal warning. He filed a case against his suspension and the warning order with the Kerala High Court, arguing that it should not have been placed in his service records and could have a negative impact on his career. The petitioner contended that the disciplinary action against him was not preceded by a formal investigation. The employer, FACT, retorted that the employee’s posts in the WhatsApp group implied that the job was dangerous. It further stated that the petitioner’s punishment was insignificant and that such statements would motivate other employees to rebel against the corporation. The Court observed that although the petitioner had apologised and admitted to having sent the WhatsApp posts, it did not mean he had admitted to the charge that the messages were “objectionable.”

VERDICT

The court ruled that, there is nothing wrong about an employee discussing safety issues at his employer in private chats on WhatsApp. It was emphasized that violating the employee’s right to free speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution would result in disciplinary action from the employer. While dismissing one of two disciplinary allegations brought against a technician employed by a government-run fertilizer plant, the Court made this statement. The technician had uploaded a few posts regarding ammonia handling safety problems at a company unit. These were exchanged in a closed WhatsApp group.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Shreyasi Ghatak

0

Kerala High Court Ruling: Excessive Delay Bars Date of Birth Correction in Service Records

Case title: UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. VS SUNNY JOSEPH

Case no: OP (CAT) No.83 of 2024

Order on: May 23, 2024

Quorum: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL WITH THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.

 

Fact of the case:

In this case, The respondent (applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal) entered service as an Engineering Assistant on 07.11.1989. At the time of his appointment, the date of birth entered in the service records was 01.06.1964, as per the entries in his SSLC Book. The respondent later claimed his actual date of birth was 02.07.1964. This discovery was made when he obtained a copy of his birth certificate on 10.04.2007. The respondent approached the State Government for correction of the date of birth in the SSLC records, which was accepted on 27.06.2007. The correction in the SSLC Book was completed on 13.01.2012. The respondent submitted a representation to the Director of All India Radio, Vazhuthakadu on 16.07.2013, requesting correction of his date of birth in the service records. The authorities initially entertained the representation but eventually rejected the request by a series of inter-departmental communications, culminating in a rejection by the Deputy Director (Administration), India’s Public Service Broadcaster Directorate General, All India Radio, New Delhi, on 04.02.2015. The respondent’s request for replacing his Aadhar card was also rejected on 09.03.2015 due to the discrepancy in dates of birth. The respondent did not register for the biometric attendance system, leading to further directives and responses. After multiple proceedings, including the invocation of a public grievance mechanism, the respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, which allowed his application on 24.07.2023.

Issues framed by court:

Whether the Tribunal should entertaining the respondent’s belated claim for correction of date of birth in the service records?

Legal provisions:

Section 21 of the Central Administrative Tribunal’s Act, 1985:

This section deals with the limitation period for filing applications before the Tribunal, setting specific timelines within which grievances must be raised.

Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules:

It prescribes the conditions under which corrections to the date of birth in service records can be made, emphasizing a five-year limitation period.

 Contentions of Appellant:

The appellant argued that the respondent’s request for correction of the date of birth was highly belated. The request was made after 23.5 years of service, far exceeding the five-year limitation period prescribed by the relevant rules and the DOPT Office Memorandum No.19017/2/92-Estt(A) dated 19.05.1993. The appellant relied on several Supreme Court judgments, including State of Maharashtra and another v. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble & Others [(2010) 14 SCC 423]. and State of M.P. v. Premlal Shrivas [(2011) 9 SCC 664], which established that corrections to the date of birth should not be entertained at the fag end of an employee’s career. The appellant also cited Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules, emphasizing the five-year limit for correction requests. The appellant contended that the Original Application was not maintainable before the Tribunal because the cause of action arose in 2015, and the application was filed only in 2022, thus barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Central Administrative Tribunal’s Act, 1985.

Contentions of Respondents:

The respondent argued that he could not have approached the authorities for correction until the SSLC Book was corrected, which occurred on 13.01.2012. Therefore, his application to the authorities in 2013 was timely. The respondent highlighted the delay between 27.06.2007 (when the State Government sanctioned the correction) and 13.01.2012 (when the SSLC Book was corrected), arguing that this period should be excluded from the calculation of the limitation period. The respondent pointed to his immediate action after obtaining the corrected SSLC Book and argued that he had followed proper procedures in seeking the correction. The respondent emphasized that the change in the date of birth would only alter his retirement by 32 days, causing no significant burden to the department.

 Court analysis:

The court noted the clear statutory restriction under Section 21 of the Central Administrative Tribunal’s Act, 1985, and the regulatory requirement for filing correction requests within five years of entering service. The respondent’s delay in filing the application was beyond the permissible limit. The court emphasized that the prudency of the employer in prescribing the five-year limitation for correction requests is sacrosanct and not subject to judicial review unless there is clinching proof of a genuine error. The court criticized the Tribunal for ignoring the statutory and regulatory limitations and entertaining the belated claim. The Tribunal’s decision was found to be contrary to established principles and precedents. The Kerala High Court set aside the Tribunal’s order dated 24.07.2023 in O.A.No.469/2022. The Original Application filed by the respondent was dismissed as it was not maintainable due to the significant delay and non-compliance with the prescribed timelines. The court concluded that the respondent’s application for correction of the date of birth in the service records was not permissible due to the excessive delay and statutory prohibitions. No order as to costs was made.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed By- Antara Ghosh

Click to view the full judgement

0

“Kerala High Court Directs Closure of Schools Without Playgrounds and Extra-Curricular Activities”

Case title: Prakash N v. G.W.L.P. (Government Welfare Lower Primary) School & Ors.

Case no.: WP(C) No. 19170 of 2014

Order on: 11th April 2024

Quorum: Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan

FACTS OF THE CASE

The petitioners, Prakash N and Rajani R, represented the Parent Teachers Association and the Managing Committee Member of the Government Welfare Lower Primary School, Thevayoor South, Pathanamthitta. They filed a writ petition seeking to restrain respondents 2 and 3 from constructing a water tank in the school ground without obtaining permission from the school authorities or higher authorities. The petitioners provided photographic evidence of ongoing construction activities in the playground of the school.

The court directed the State Government to formulate norms/guidelines within four months regarding the extent of playground necessary in each category of schools and the facilities required in school playgrounds. It also mandated that educational authorities ensure compliance and take stringent action, including closure of schools not adhering to these norms.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

The appellants, represented by their advocates, argued for the necessity of obtaining permission for construction within the school compound and emphasized the importance of preserving the playground space for educational and recreational activities.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

The respondents, represented by various government bodies and officials, argued against the petition, contesting the need for prior permission for the construction and presenting their justifications for the proposed water tank.

ISSUE

  • Whether construction activities within the school compound require prior permission from educational authorities.
  • The significance of playgrounds in educational institutions and the legal obligations regarding their maintenance.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The court emphasized the vital role of playgrounds in schools, highlighting their importance for holistic child development and educational enhancement. It referenced relevant provisions in the Kerala Education Rules (KER) and the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, noting the absence of specific guidelines regarding playground size and facilities.

The court cited precedents and affiliation rules of educational boards like CBSE and CISCE, which clearly stipulate requirements for playground size and amenities. It expressed concern over the lack of similar regulations in Kerala’s education laws.

Consequently, the court directed the State Government to formulate norms/guidelines specifying the extent of playgrounds required for different types of schools and the facilities they should contain. It mandated strict enforcement, including potential school closures for non-compliance.

The judgment underscores the importance of playgrounds in educational institutions and calls for regulatory measures to ensure their proper maintenance and availability for students’ physical and recreational activities. It sets a precedent for the government to enact specific guidelines in line with educational standards and best practices.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Chiraag K A

Click the Link to View Judgement

0

Dying declarations relied on by the Prosecution failed the test of its Acceptability and Reliability: Kerala High Court Acquits the man Convicted for the Offence of Uxoricide

Case title: Eby@Philip Ninan Vs State of Kerala

Case no.: Criminal Appeal No. 139 of 2017

Order on: April 2nd, 2024

Quoram: Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Kauser Edappagath

Facts of the case

The case pertains to the offence of uxoricide. The appellant Eby @Philip Ninan and his wife were residing along with their two babies at Thrissillery. It was alleged that the appellant killed his 24-year-old wife Elsy (victim) by setting her on fire with a motive to sell their house and property which was previously refused by the deceased. The prosecution case was that the appellant with the intention of killing his wife poured kerosene on her head and set her ablaze. The victim, who suffered serious burns all over her body, was rushed to the Hospital, but eventually succumbed to the injuries.

The trial court, after a full-fledged trial, found the appellant guilty under Section 302 of IPC, mainly relying on the dying declaration given by the victim while she was undergoing treatment at the Hospital. The appellant contested this decision before the High Court.

Contentions of the Appellant

The Appellant contended that the injuries were not sustained by the victim in the manner and fashion alleged by the prosecution. Instead, he stated that the injuries were due to the act of self-immolation by the victim and he was not responsible for it. It was contended that the victim sustained burn injuries when she attempted to set herself ablaze by pouring kerosene on her body following a rift with the appellant. While the accused attempted to save her, he also suffered burn injuries. The Counsel defending these contentions submitted that dying declarations of the victim cannot be considered as the victim was not in a fit state of mind to make the statements.

Contentions of the Respondents

The Prosecutor presented two statements given by the deceased and her mother. The Victim in Ext. 3 stated that the appellant set her ablaze after pouring kerosene. Further her mother stated that as and when she reached the hospital on the night of the incident, the deceased told her that it was the appellant who set her on fire. The prosecution heavily relied on these two statements and regarded them as dying declarations falling under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act to prove its case. Further, submitted that the materials on record indicated that the victim was conscious and capable of giving the statement, and hence the same cannot be discarded merely on the absence of independent medical evidence to prove the state of mind of the victim.

Legal Provisions

Section 302 of IPC – It deals with punishment for murder

Section 32 of Evidence Act – It deals with statements made by a deceased person regarding the cause of their death or the circumstances leading to it.

Issue – The Evidentiary value and the Reliability of the said Dying declarations were strongly assailed before the Bench.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement

The Court noted the statements given by the witnesses and examined the autopsy and other reports placed on record. Further, delving into Section 32 of the Evidence Act which deals with relevance of the statement (dying declarations) given by dead persons, drew a distinction between the English Law and Indian Law on the admissibility of such statements. While in the former, it is immaterial whether the person who makes it was or was not under the expectation of death at the time of declaration, the latter strictly provides that the declarant should have been in actual danger of death and should be expecting an imminent death.

The sanctity of dying declaration is justifies in twofold: firstly, ethically and religiously it is presumed that a person while at the brink of death will not lie, secondly from a public policy perspective it is to tackle a situation where the only witness to the crime is not available. However, the Court must ascertain that the statement of the deceased was not because of either tutoring or prompting or a product of imagination and is made in a fit state of mind. It thus, noted that these two factors play a vital role in admissibility and reliability of the dying declaration. The Court asserted that a dying declaration can be the sole basis of the conviction if it is made in a fit mental state, but in case of any suspicion as to its veracity it would be considered only as a piece of evidence.

The Court, analyzing the circumstances of the case in the light of above principles and various authorities ruled that none of the dying declarations relied on by the prosecution passed the test of its acceptability and reliability and as such there is no convincing evidence to prove that the victim was in a fit state of mind when those declarations were made. Further, the statement of the deceased mother was termed as hearsay which is inadmissible. The Kerala High Court thus held that the evidence of the witnesses on record were insufficient to prove the guilt of the appellant and extended the benefit of doubt to him. Therefore, it set aside the impugned order of the Trial Court and acquitted the appellant. The Court through this decision cleared the line on the interpretation of Section 32 and broadly determined the factors mitigating the reliability and admissibility of dying declarations.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Keerthi K

Click here to view the Judgement

0

S. 12 of Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 operates prospectively in regard to period of detention: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Prabhulla P. v. State of Kerala & ors.

Case No: WP(CRL.) No. 852 of 2023

Decided on:  3rd January, 2024

CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN 

Facts of the Case

Initially, the detenu was detained invoking provision of the KAAPA in the year 2009. The last prejudicial activity was committed by the detenu on 15.11.2022 and he was arrested on the same day. The preliminary report was filed by the Station House Officer on 22.12.2022. The order was issued only on 10.04.2023. The detenu is under detention since 03.05.2023. The final report in Crime No.1483/2022 was filed on 20.06.2023.

The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, based on amendment under Section 13 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, the detenu cannot be detained by operation of amended provision for a period of one year, in view of the fact that the earlier detention was suffered by him, was based on un-amended provision under Section 12 of the KAAPA.

Issues

Whether detention order can be passed under Section 12 of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “the KAAPA”) detaining a person beyond six months in a case where such a detenu suffered detention prior to the amendment to Section 12?

Legal Provisions

Before the amendment, the Section 12 of the KAAPA reads as:

 “12. Maximum period of detention-The maximum period for which any person may be detained in pursuance of any detention order made under this Act, which has been confirmed under Section 10, shall not exceed six months from the date of detention.”

After the amendment in 2014, the Section 12 of the KAAPA reads as:

“12. Maximum period of detention – In pursuance of the first detention order made against any person under this Act and confirmed under Section 10, he may be detained for a period which may extend upto six months from the date of the detention and in pursuance of such subsequent detention order made against such person, he may be detained for a period which may extend up to a maximum of one year.”

Court’s analysis and decision

Section 12 of the KAAPA would operate only prospectively in regard to the period of detention. Earlier detention order was in the year 2009, that cannot be taken into account for imposing maximum one year detention after 31.12.2014.

There is no explanation for the considerable delay of five months in passing the detention order. The impuged order is set aside. The petitioner is ordered to be released forthwith, if it is not otherwise required under law.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Afshan Ahmad

Click here to read the judgement

1 2