IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 777 of 2011(V)
1. GOVINDA PILLAI.C., AGED 58 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. KUNJU LAKSHMANAN, AGED 58 YEARS,
3. K.K.UNNITHAN, AGED 58 YEARS,
Vs
1. THE GENERAL MANAGER,
... Respondent
2. MAJOR ALEXANDER MATHEW,
3. THE DIRECTORATE GENERAL RE-SETTLEMENT,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :20/01/2011
O R D E R
P.N. RAVINDRAN, J.
-------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.777 of 2011
-------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of January, 2011
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners are ex-service men. They are the
employees of an organization run by the second respondent which has
entered into a contract with the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. to provide
security services in the installations of BSNL. In this writ petition, the
petitioners challenge Exts.P2, P3 and P4 letters issued by the second
respondent informing them that their services will stand terminated
from 11.1.2011 on their attaining the age of 58 years. The petitioners
also seek a direction to the first respondent to retain them in service
till they attain the age of 60 years.
2. Sri.C.S.Ramanathan, the learned standing counsel
appearing for BSNL submitted that the second respondent has
modified Exts.P2 to P4 orders stating that as per the regulations issued
by the Director General of Resettlement, the retirement age for ex-
service men is 58 years. The learned counsel also submitted with
reference to Ext.P1 that the dispute is between the petitioners and
their employer, the second respondent, and the BSNL is not bound to
engage the petitioners, if their employer has terminated their services.
The petitioners are not employees of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.
They are employees of the second respondent. If their employer has
W.P.(C) No.777 of 2011
2
terminated their services, their remedy is to raise a dispute and to
have the same resolved under the provisions of the Industrial
Disputes Act.
In such circumstances, no relief can be granted to the
petitioners. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. It will
be open to the petitioner to challenge the termination of their services
in other appropriate proceedings.
P.N. RAVINDRAN,
JUDGE.
nj.