Art.311 - Employee of Public Sector Company can neither claim the protection of Art.311 nor the extension of the protection on parity - An employee of the company cannot claim that he cannot be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed [Perezhilan v. Cement Corporation of India Ltd. and others, ILR 1996 (3) Ker. 683, C.S. Rajan (J)]
Art.311 - Applies only to Government employees - Public sector undertaking cannot be taken within the definition of 'Government' as coming under Art.311. [James Mathew v. Cement Corporation of India, 1997 (1) KLT SN 61 = ILR 1997 (3) Ker.151, C.S. Rajan (J)]
Art.311 - An order of compulsory retirement of a subordinate judicial officer is based on the subjective satisfaction of the High Court - Principles of natural justice can come into play only to a limited extent - See - Service Rules, (Kerala), Part I R.60(aaa). [Paradesi Thyagarajan v. High Court of Kerala, 1998 (2) KLT 967 = 1998 (2) KLJ 414.,
Art.311(2) - Procedure contemplated under R.17(1)(b) is not applicable to cases where personnel is convicted by a Criminal Court - See - Police Departmental Inquiries, Punishment & Appeal Rules, 1958 (Kerala) Rr.17(1) (b) & 15. [ Chandrasekharan Nair v. Commissioner of Police, 1997 (2) KLT 734 = 1997(2) KLJ 351]
Art.311(2) - The members of the Municipal Common Service or any other employee of the Municipality are not civil servants so as to attract Art.311. [Thripunithura Municipality v. M. Leela, 1997 92) KLT 278 = 1997 (2) KLJ 345 = ILR 1997 (3) Ker.802, K.G. Balakrishnan & C.S. Rajan (JJ)]