IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 28187 of 2007(E)
1. V.SUKESAN, S/O. VAMADEVAN ASHARY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,
... Respondent
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
3. JAYADEV PALIATH,S/O.M.R.RAVI VARMA,
For Petitioner :SRI.SABU S.KALLARAMOOLA
For Respondent :SRI.C.AJITH KUMAR
Dated :18/02/2008
O R D E R
? IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
+WP(C).No. 26496 of 2009(F)
#1. PRAVEEN R.S., RAM SERVICE AGENT,
... Petitioner
2. BABU B, RAMP SERVICE AGENT,
3. MADHUSUDHANAN NAIR R,
4. JAYAKUAR D,
5. SUBHASH KUMAR C,
6. BIJUMON K,
7. JAYACHANDRAN A.V.,
8. PRAVEEN D.S.,
9. SANKAR R.S.,
10. SIVI T.
11. DHANESH N, RAM SERVICE AGENT,
12. SATHEESH BABU B.L.,
13. MANOJ M.A.,
14. SATHEESH KUMAR C,
15. A. BALAKRISHNAN,
16. CHANDRASEKHARAN M,P.,
17. VIPIN S,
18. ARUN S.K.,
19. JINU G,
20. ASHOK KUMAR G.,
21. SONY V.P,
22. SYAM, KUMAR V,
23. MANI K.V.,
24. SIVAKUMAR ,A
25. ANOOP MOHANAN,
Vs
$1. THE NATIONAL AVIATION COMPANY LTD.,
... Respondent
2. THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,
3. AIR INDIA AIR TRANSPORT SERVICE
4. THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,
5. THE GENERAL MANAGER, GROUND SERVICES
6. THE REGIONAL MANAGER,
7. AIR INDIA CHARATERS LTD.,
! For Petitioner :SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.
^ For Respondent :SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR
*Coram
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
% Dated :29/09/2009
: O R D E R
V.GIRI,J.
————————-
W.P ( C) No.26496 of 2009
————————–
Dated this the 29th September,2009
J U D G M E N T
Petitioners are working as Ramp Service Agents in
the International Airport at Thiruvananthapuram. They
had responded to Ext.P7-notification by the 3rd respondent
which is the Air India Air Transport Services Ltd inviting
applications for appointment to the post of Ramp Service
Agents. The notification stipulated that the appointment
will be on a contract basis for a period of three years which
could be extended on the basis of the merit of the
performance. In the case of some of the petitioners the
original period had expired and contract was extended. In
the case of the 1st petitioner the period of the extended
contract is due to expire by 30.9.2009. Third respondent
has not extended the period of contract or expressed its
willingness to do so. But in the meanwhile, Ext.P14
communication has been mailed by the Asst. General
Manager of the AIATSL of the 3rd respondent indicating
W.P ( C) No.26496 of 2009
2
that man power is being engaged in the 3rd respondent
under three years contract which is renewed for a further
period of three years as approved by the competent
authority. But there is no approval to further extend the
contract. Therefore, it is mandatory not to continue or
roster any staff who have completed the first renewal of the
contract i.e. completion of total six years in AIATSL. This is
under challenge in the writ petition. Petitioners are
praying for a direction to the 3rd respondent to allow them
to continue in service and also restraining the respondents
from terminating the service of the petitioners and
appointing fresh recruits to discharge the duties arising in
the ground handling Department. Petitioners at the same
time make it clear that they have not in this writ petition,
prayed for a direction to regularise their services.
2. A statement has been filed on behalf of the
respondents. A reply affidavit has been filed by the
petitioners.
3. Heard Sri. Elvin Peter, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Sri.E.K. Nandakumar, learned counsel
W.P ( C) No.26496 of 2009
3
appearing for the respondents.
4. It is pointed out that the original recruitment
was on a contract basis, for a period of three years, which
was extendable by a further unspecified period on the basis
of merit. The contract for the subsequent period has been
produced along with the statement which shows that the
renewal of the contract is for three years but the date of
expiry of the renewed contract is also mentioned, in the
case of the 1st petitioner as 30.9.2009.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
an instrumentality of the State should not resort to
successive contracts, which is to deny the benefit of
regularisation to the employees. It is contended that they
do the same duties as that of other employees, Ramp
Assistants, who are engaged on a regular basis. Though the
petitioners do not claim the benefit of regularisation, their
services need not be dispensed with, for the purpose of
accommodating other employees on a fixed term contract
basis, it is contended.
6. I do not find force in the submission made by the
W.P ( C) No.26496 of 2009
4
petitioners. They have no case that the original
employment on a contract basis, was a camouflage for a
regular recruitment, to avoid the burden of regular
recruitment to a cadre post. They took the contract which
was offered by the 3rd respondent. They served for the
period of contract. Thereafter, the period was extended
for one more term. There is a specific date of expiry of the
term of contract which varies from person to person and in
the case of the 1st petitioner , it is 30.9.2009. It is not a
case where a further extension is mandated under the
renewed contract. The date of expiry is specified. Unless
there is a fresh contract, the period of contract expires on
the specified date.
7. It is relevant to note the definition of
retrenchment in Section 2 (oo) of the I.D Act and the same
reads as follows:
” “Retrenchment” means the
termination by the employer of the service of a
workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise
than as a punishment inflicted by way of
disciplinary action but does not include –
W.P ( C) No.26496 of 2009
5
(a) voluntary retirement of the workman;
or
(b) retirement of the workman on
reaching the age of superannuation if the
contract of employment between the employer
and the workman concerned contains a
stipulation in that behalf; or
(bb) termination of the service of the
workman as a result of the non-renewal of the
contract of employment between the employer
and the workman concerned on its expiry or of
such contract being terminated under a
stipulation on that behalf contained therein; or
(c) termination of the service of a
workman on the ground of continued ill-health
8. Non-renewal of the term of contract and
termination of the services of such non-renewal does not
qualify as a retrenchment within the meaning of the I.D
Act.
9. Though the petitioners themselves do not claim
the benefit of regularisation, they refer to Ext.P16 Scheme
which essentially comprehends casual employees. It
provides for the right of a casual employee to be considered
when a regular recruitment is launched. The fact that
petitioners have served as employees on a fixed term
W.P ( C) No.26496 of 2009
6
contract basis will obviously be taken into account when a
recruitment is made. That will subject to the rules and
regulations which are then prevailing.
10. I do not find any illegality in the employer
deciding that a fresh recruitment of employees on a fixed
term contract basis might become necessary. It does not
mean that the present petitioners will not be considered if
such fresh contracts are contemplated and decided upon by
the employer. But it is up to the respondents to decide the
mode of engagement. I am sure, the fact that petitioners
have chosen to approach this Court will not be treated as a
blot by respondents if they decide to go for a fresh batch of
employees on a fixed term contract basis . Respondents are
an instrumentality of the State and they are only interested
in regulating their activities in the larger public interest
and in the interest of the organisation as such.
Subject to the above, writ petition is disposed of.
(V.GIRI,JUDGE)
ma
W.P ( C) No.26496 of 2009
7
W.P ( C) No.26496 of 2009
8