IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 374 of 2008(T)
1. JAYACHANDRAN.P., MILK RECORDER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE ASSISTANT MANAGER (A.H),
... Respondent
2. KERALA LIVE STOCK DEVELOPMENT BOARD LTD
3. SECRETARY TO GOVT., AGRICULTURE (AHG)
For Petitioner :SRI.K.REGHU KOTTAPPURAM
For Respondent :SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :11/03/2008
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J.
-----------
W.P.(C)No.374 OF 2008
-----------------------------
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2008
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner submits that he has been working as milk recorder
on contract basis since 1.4.2001 under the Kerala Live Stock
developments Board, Kottayam District. He submits that as a matter
of fact there is employer-employee relationship between him and the
2nd respondent. Exhibit P5 order passed by the Board in 1998 refers to
sanction accorded by the Government to reserve 25% of the
vacancies of unskilled workers/permanent labourers in the Farms of
the KLD Board for appointment from among the milk recorders
engaged on piecemeal contract. The sanction accorded by the
Government in this regard in Exhibit P5 is under G.O.(MS) 149/96/AD
dated 22.3.1996, Exhibit R2. The Government directed reservation of
25% of the vacancies of unskilled workers/permanent labourers, but
subject to the conditions mentioned therein, one of them being that
the persons concerned must be having a minimum of 10 years of
service before absorption. Clause (5) of the order makes it clear that
the sanction by the Government was apparently a one time measure
and the Board was also directed not to engage any milk recorder in the
W.P.(C)No.374/08 2
resultant vacancy or otherwise.
2. One of the reliefs sought for by the petitioner is for a direction
to the respondents to prepare a list of milk recorders as indicated in
Exhibit P5 and to regularise the petitioner in accordance with seniority
against 25% of the vacancies of unskilled workers/permanent labolurers.
It is on the basis of Exhibit R2 that Exhibit P5 order was passed. Exhibit
R2 Government Order will not comprehend the petitioner and therefore
the said relief as sought for cannot be granted.
3. Shri Raghu Kottappuram, the learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner actually has an employer-employee
relationship with the Board and contract labour system was essentially a
camouflage. Smt.Sumathi Dandapani learned Senior Counsel appearing
on behalf of the respondent submits that there was no contract labour
system and the petitioner was not engaged as such by the Board.
Counsel for the petitioner refers to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in A.P.SRTC and others v. G.Srinivas Reddy and others (2006
(3) SCC 674). The Supreme Court held in the said case that it is not
proper for the High Court to direct absorption of respondents who were
held to be contract labour, by assuming that the contract labour system
was only a camouflage and that there was employer-employee
relationship between the appellant and respondents in that case. In other
W.P.(C)No.374/08 3
words, even assuming that the contract labour system was being adopted
by the first respondent, (which is not being admitted by the respondent)
the remedy of the petitioner is to approach the appropriate forum and not
to seek a writ of mandamus before the High Court as such. Subject to
the said right, if any, of the petitioner to move the appropriate forum
under the Industrial Disputes Act, if so advised and if available, the writ
petition is disposed of.
V.GIRI, JUDGE.
dsn