Allowed

K.L.Rukmini v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Kerala HC17 Dec 2016WP(C)/5894/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a long-serving contractual employee, approached the High Court seeking regularization. Relying on a Board order regularizing junior colleagues and a Tribunal award affirming her worker status, the Court directed the Board to consider her for regularization, rejecting the distinction between her and regularized contract workers.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner to be considered for regularization by the Kerala State Electricity Board.

K.L.Rukmini Vs Kerala State Electricity Board — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

SATURDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 5894 of 2013 (J) ---------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

K.L.RUKMINI, D/O.KRISHNAN,KANATTU HOUSE, NEENDAPARA PO, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.P.M.PAREETH SRI.MOHAMMED SHAMEEL

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDHYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695001. 2. CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD , REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDHYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695001. 3. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, CIVIL CIRCLE, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KOTHAMANGALAM. 4. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, GENERATION CIRCLE, KOTHAMANGALAM. 5. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, B & R SUB DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KARIMANAL 6. PROJECT MANAGER, THOTTIYAR HYDRO ELECTRIC PROJECT, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KARIMANAL, THATTEKKANNI, PO IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC BY SMT.A.G.ANITHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-12-2016, ALONG WITH WPC. 19180/2013,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

K.V.

¶12

WPC 5894 OF 2013:

¶13

APPENDIX

¶14

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:

¶15

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

¶16

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE WORK ORDER DATED 31/12/1992 FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1/1/1993 TO 31/1/1993 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

¶17

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE WORK ORDER DATED NIL FOR 01-02-1993 TO 31/3/1993.

¶18

EXHIBIT P2(A) A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED BY EMPLOYMENT OFFICER, EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, KOTHAMANGALAM.

¶19

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE AWARD DATED 7/9/2005 IN ID MP NO.4/2001 IN ID NO.12/1998.

¶20

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPIES OF THE CHEQUES DATED 12/4/2010, 17/5/2010 AND 20/7/2010 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶21

EXHIBIT P4(A) TRUE PHOTOCOPIES OF THE CHEQUES DATED 8/8/2011 AND 28/10/2011 ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CIVIL CIRCLE KSE BOARD, KOTHAMANGALAM AND DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER CIVIL CIRCLE KSE BOARD, KOTHAMANGALAM

¶22

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE BO)FB) NO.1660/2007(EB.4(C)/ PTC/06-07)D 17/7/207.

¶23

EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15/2/2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶24

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶25

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

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

K.V.

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶30

W.P.(C) No. 5894 of 2013

¶31

Dated this the 17^th day of December, 2016

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

1.The petitioner, aggrieved by Ext.P5 order of the Kerala State Electricity Board (for short, “the Board”) dated 17.07.2007, regularizing certain contractual employees in the service of the Board along with some employment exchange candidates, approached this Court. According to the petitioner, those regularized employees are junior to the petitioner. Therefore, according to the petitioner, she is also entitled for absorption.

¶34

2.The petitioner refers to Ext.P3 award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Idukki, in ID MP No.4/2001 in ID No.12/1998, wherein it is held that as the petitioner herein is a worker under the Board. Thus, it is urged that there is no difficulty in regularizing the employment of the petitioner.

¶35

3.In this context, it is appropriate to refer to the award in ID No.12/1998 as this may have an impact on this writ

¶36

W.P.(C) No. 5894 of 2013

¶37

..2..

¶38

petition as well. The award in ID No.12/1998 arose consequent upon a dispute raised by 14 persons, who were originally engaged as petty contractors by the Board at the inspection bungalows erected in connection with the Lower Periyar H.E. Project. They claimed that they are workmen under the Board. The stand of the Board was that they are only engaged as petty contractors and their service would be terminated on completion of the project. The Industrial Tribunal, Idukki, overruling the objection of the Board, held that there exists employer - workman relationship between the Board and the 14 persons. This was challenged by the Board in WP(C) No.21068/2006. This Court did not interfere with the finding of the tribunal that the 14 persons were engaged in a contract of service and are not petty contractors and therefore, those 14 persons engaged by the Board have to be treated as workmen under the Board. However, this Court, in that case, held that they were engaged by the Board as contract workers. It was also observed in the above case that if those contract workers are entitled for absorption on

¶39

..3..

¶40

W.P.(C) No. 5894 of 2013

¶41

account of their engagement after the termination of the project, they are free to take up their claim for regularization in appropriate manner before the appropriate authority.

¶42

4.The petitioner's claim is that she was continuously engaged even after the completion of the project in relation to the Lower Periyar H.E. Project, Vazhathope. It is also submitted that now also, she is engaged in another office at Idukki. It is submitted that as per Ext.P5 order, certain persons, who are junior to the petitioner, have been regularized. It is further submitted that in view of the clear finding that the petitioner was found out to be a contractual worker, there is no impediment in regularizing her service, as she had put more than two decades' service with the Board. Ext.P5 is the decision of the Board to regularize the service of six persons. This shows that some of the workmen, who were engaged on contract basis, were ordered to be regularized pursuant to the direction of this Court in OP No.18154/1996. This

¶43

Court, in fact, directed the Board to consider regularization. If anyone of the contract workers is

¶44

..4..

¶45

W.P.(C) No. 5894 of 2013

¶46

regularized, who is junior to the petitioner, certainly, the petitioner is well founded in her claim that there was a discrimination among the similarly situated employees. The petitioner raised a claim before the Board as per Ext.P6 dated 15.02.2013. This Court is of the view that in the light of Ext.P5, the petitioner shall also be considered for regularization.

¶47

5.Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of, as follows;

¶48

In the light of Ext.P5, the petitioner shall be considered for regularization.

¶49

• It is made clear that in the light of the award in ID No.12/1998, the status of the petitioner is that of a 'contractual employee'. Therefore, the petitioner's status has to be considered for the purpose of regularization as that of a contractual worker and the Board cannot treat her as a worker engaged in contract for service.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE

¶52

bka/-

K.L.Rukmini v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.L.Rukmini v. Kerala State Electricity Board

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

Sarada Vs S.Venkatesapathy

Thomas Vs Anil Kumar

Suchetha Vs Mini Kumari

Gireesh Kumar Vs Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

K.L.Rukmini Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

The Secretary,K.S.E.B,Trivandrum Vs Industrial Tribunal