Disposed

R.Sreedev v. Secy. Industries Department

Kerala HC18 May 2010OP/15296/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of three writ petitions challenging regularization of other workers. The court held it was for the Government to decide between competing claims and directed the authorities to examine all aspects and take a decision within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Government to examine all relevant aspects including sanction and claims within three months and take an appropriate decision.

R.Sreedev Vs Secy. Industries Department — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 18TH MAY 2010 / 28TH VAISAKHA 1932

¶5

OP.No. 15296 of 1999(U)

¶6

------------------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

-----------------------

¶9

1. R.S.SREEDEV, S/O.RAGHAVAN, R.S.BHAVAN, KOTTAMAM, PARASUVAKKAL P.O.

¶10

2. J.SAM JOHN, BETHEL NIVAS, KOTTAMAM, ARAYUR P.O.

¶11

3. K.VIJU, PUTHUVAL POTTAVILA VEEDU, PACHALLOOR P.O.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP

¶13

RESPONDENT(S):

¶14

---------------------------

¶15

1. SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

2. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE PALMYRAH PRODUCTS DEVELOPMENT AND WORKERS WELFARE CORPORATION (KELPAM),DEVAKI GOPAL SMRITHY, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANANTHAPURAM.

¶17

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA

¶18

R2 BY ADV. SRI.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN

¶19

THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/05/2010 ALONG WITH WPC NO. 1595 OF 2008 AND WP.C.NO.30457 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

Kss

¶21

ORDER ON CMP.NO.24799/1999 IN O.P.NO.15296/1999 U

¶22

CLOSED

¶23

18/05/2010

¶24

SD/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,JUDGE

¶25

APPENDIX

¶26

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶27

P1: COPY OF THE REFERRAL O.P.CARD PERTAINING TO THE TREATMENT OF FIRST PETITIONER'S FATHER IN CONNECTION WITH HIS ATTEMPT TO SUICIDE DTD. 9/04/1999.

¶28

P2: COPY OF THE DEATH NOTE PREPARED BY THE FATHER OF THE FIRST PETITIONER DTD. 27/03/1999.

¶29

P3: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.153/98/ID DTD. 24/10/1998.

¶30

P4: COPY OF THE PROPOSAL MADE FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF 8 PERSONS TO THE SANCTIONED/POSTS BEFORE THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS.

¶31

P5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA DTD. 31/05/99.

¶32

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶33

R2(A): COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶34

R2(B): COPY OF THE ORDER NO.M/29/116 DTD. 20/08/1998 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶35

R2(C): COPY OF THE MEMO NO.COMPLT/88(S)/98 DTD. 28/08/98 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.

¶36

R2(D): COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY SRI. A.T. GEORGE TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶37

R2(E): COPY OF THE ATTENDANCE REGISTER FOR THE MONTH OF AUGUST,1998 SHOWING THE ABSENCE OF 1ST PETITIONER.

¶38

R2(F): COPY OF THE LETTER NO.XIII(1)662/89/CW DTD. 26/03/94 ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE SECRETARY, PSC, TRIVANDRUM.

¶39

R2(G): COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT CORPORATION FOR THE YEAR 1993 TO 1999.

¶40

R2(H): COPY OF RESOLUTION NO.10/95 OF THE FORTY SECOND MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF KELPALM HELD ON 27/03/95.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

Kss

T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.

¶45

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

¶46

O.P.No.15296/1999-U, W.P.(C). Nos.1595/2008-M & 30457/2008-A

¶47

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

¶48

Dated this the 18^th day of May, 2010

¶49

J U D G M E N T

¶50

These writ petitions concern, the appointments in the very same organisation, namely, the Kerala State Palmyrah Products Development and Workers' Welfare Corporation Ltd.

¶51

(Kelpalm).

¶52

In O.P.No.15296/1999 there are three petitioners.

¶53

The main relief sought for in the O.P is to quash Ext.P4. The averments contained in the writ petition show that the petitioners were engaged on daily wage basis for some periods. But at the time of filing of the writ petition,

¶54

they were not in service of the Corporation. It is contended in the writ petition that without considering their claims, other persons are sought to be regularised in service going by Ext.P4 resolution.

¶55

The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit producing Exts.R2(a) to R2(g). It is stated in paragraph (4) of the counter affidavit that the first petitioner was working for sometime in the facility centre at Kottamon as watchman, purely, on daily wages. It is also averred that from 13/08/1998 onwards he is not working in the Unit at Kottamon. As regards the second petitioner, it is pointed out that he was working as Instructor in the

¶56

O.P.No.15296/1999-U, W.P.(C). Nos.1595/2008-M & 30457/2008-A

¶57

-:2:-

¶58

Kottamon Unit of Kelpalm in connection with a training programme sponsored by the Kerala Women's Development Corporation for its Brush making Unit, for 50 women, for six months. The third petitioner was in the Kottamon Unit for six months as a trainee.

¶59

It is further pointed out in the counter affidavit that till 24/10/1998 all the three Units of Kelpalm, namely, Kottamon, Kollam and Alathur had no sanctioned posts of workers and all its operations were carried on with the contract workers. As per G.O.(MS).No.22/93/ID, dated 04/03/1992 and G.O.(MS).No.34/94/ ID,dated 31/01/1994, the Government had approved the project proposal for the expansion and modernisation of the activities of Kelpalm and as per Ext.P3 [G.O.(MS).No.153/98/ID dated 24/10/1998] sanction was accorded for 11 posts. Thereafter, the Board of Directors passed a resolution to regularise the service of 8 workers who were working on contract basis for the last so many years. Reference is made to Ext.R2(f) letter issued to the second respondent-Corporation by the P.S.C also.

¶60

In fact, there was another writ petition filed as O.P.No.15797/1999 which was disposed of by Judgment dated 27/10/2005 in the light of the interim order in C.M.P

¶61

O.P.No.15296/1999-U, W.P.(C). Nos.1595/2008-M & 30457/2008-A

¶62

-:3:-

¶63

No.25707/1999. It was made clear in the Judgment that “it

¶64

is for the respondents to take appropriate action in the matter, if required in the light of the Judgment in O.P.No.15296/1999”. The reference to the Judgment in O.P.No.15296/1999 is obviously by a mistake.

¶65

As far as W.P.(C).No.1595/2008 is concerned, the

¶66

petitioners therein are petitioners 1 and 3 in O.P.No. 15797/1999. The Judgment in O.P.No.15797/1999 is produced as Ext.P17 and the main relief sought for in the writ petition is for a direction to the respondents to implement Exts.P15 and P16 and to regularise the service of the petitioners in the Kelpalm. Ext.P15 is the copy of the G.O.(MS).No.153/98/ID dated 24/10/1998 according sanction for 11 posts in Kelpalm (Ext.P3 in O.P.No.15296/1999) and Ext.P16 is the copy of the resolution passed by the Board of Directors of Kelpalm for the absorption of 8 employees on regular basis. The petitioners in the writ petition are Serial Nos.2 and 1 there. The second respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit. It is mentioned therein that as per Ext.P16, the Corporation has requested the Government for sanction for absorption of the provisional employees including the petitioners. However, the Government has not given approval for the same and being a

¶67

O.P.No.15296/1999-U, W.P.(C). Nos.1595/2008-M & 30457/2008-A

¶68

-:4:-

¶69

Government Company, unless there is sanction from the Government, the Corporation is not in a position to regularise the service of the petitioners. It is also mentioned therein that the petitioners were appointed purely on provisional basis.

¶70

In W.P.(C).No.34057/2008, the petitioners claim

¶71

that they were working as skilled workers under the Corporation on daily wage basis. They were petitioners 2 and 8 in O.P.No.15797/1999. Therein also the main prayer is for a direction to the respondents to take necessary steps to implement Exts.P14 and P15 and to regularise the service of the petitioners in Kelpalm with effect from the date of Ext.P14. Ext.P14 is G.O.(MS).No.153/98/ID dated 24/10/1998 and Ext.P15 is the copy of the resolution passed by the Board of Directors of Kelpalm for the absorption of 8 employees on regular basis.

¶72

The learned counsel for the petitioners in O.P.No.15296/1999 strenuously contended that they were appointed in a similar manner. It is pointed out that overlooking their claims, the workers who were appointed on daily wage basis/contract basis along with them are now sought to be regularised resulting in discrimination.

¶73

O.P.No.15296/1999-U, W.P.(C). Nos.1595/2008-M & 30457/2008-A

¶74

-:5:-

¶75

In fact, in C.M.P.No.25707/1999 in

¶76

O.P.No.15797/1999 an interim order was passed on 02/08/1999 as follows:-

¶77

“Heard both sides. An interim direction is issued to respondents to take necessary steps to implement Exts.P25 and P26 and thereby regularising the service of the petitioners in the Kerala State Palmyrah Products Development and Workers' Welfare Corporation Ltd. subject to the result of this O.P. and also in O.P.No.15296/1999.”

¶78

In the final Judgment also the respondents were directed to

¶79

take appropriate action in the matter.

¶80

Evidently, the Government has not passed any orders so far. There are competent claims by two sets of workers. It is upto the Government to take an appropriate decision. As far as petitioners in O.P.No.15296/1999 are concerned, they are free to raise their claims before the Government by filing appropriate representation even though their names have not been sponsored by the Corporation for regularisation.

¶81

Therefore, the writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions:-

¶82

O.P.No.15296/1999-U, W.P.(C). Nos.1595/2008-M & 30457/2008-A

¶83

-:6:-

¶84

The Government is free to take appropriate decision in the matter in accordance with law in the light of Ext.P3 Government Order in O.P.No.15296/1999, namely, G.O.(MS). No.153/98/ID dated 24/10/1998 and the resolution of the Board of Directors and the claims put forward by the petitioners in O.P.No.15296/1999 and the petitioners in the other writ petitions. All the relevant aspects will be examined and appropriate decision will be taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. No costs.

¶85

(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)

¶86

¶87

O.P.No.15296/1999-U, W.P.(C). Nos.1595/2008-M & 30457/2008-A

¶88

-:7:-

¶89

T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ O.P.No.15296/1999-U, W.P.(C). Nos.1595/2008-M & 30457/2008-A

¶90

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

¶91

J U D G M E N T

¶92

18^th day of May, 2010

R.Sreedev v. Secy. Industries Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Sreedev v. Secy. Industries Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ayurveda Sastra Parishad,Secretary Vs State of Kerala

N.J.George Vs the Manager, Panchayath U.P.School

T.C.Annakutty Vs Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute

Bindu Chandran and Another Vs the District Collector,Idukki & 4 Others

M.Shihabdien Vs K.S.R.T.C. & Others

Kamalameenakshi Vs State of Kerala & Ors.