IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 27283 of 2007(W)
1. R.BIJU, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN NADAR,
... Petitioner
2. B.RAJAN, S/O.SEETHAKUTTY NADAR,
3. G.GOPAKUMAR NAIR, S/O.MADHAVAN PILLAI,
Vs
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
... Respondent
2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN, SC, KWA
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :21/07/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 27283 OF 2007 (W)
=====================
Dated this the 21st day of July, 2010
J U D G M E N T
According to the petitioners, they are provisional
employees appointed by the respondents, who are working for
more than 10 years. It is stated that, while so, their services
were ordered to be terminated, and therefore, they approached
this Court seeking to set aside the order of termination and
praying for regularization.
2. However, in the counter affidavit filed by the
respondents, the stand taken by them is that the petitioners are
workers appointed by the contractors engaged by the Kerala
Water Authority, and that therefore, neither in the matter of
their engagement nor in the matter of their termination, the
respondents have any role to play.
3. Thus, while the petitioners claim status of employees
under the respondents, according to the respondents, they are
contract workers. This disputed question of fact cannot be
resolved in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, and if according to the petitioners, they are employees
WPC No. 27283/07
:2 :
of the respondents or that the arrangement with the inter
mediary is a sham one, the remedy available to the petitioners is
to seek relief from the forums created under the Industrial
Disputes Act.
4. Therefore, without expressing anything on the merits
of the claim raised by either the petitioners or the respondents,
this writ petition is closed leaving it open to the petitioners to
seek remedies before the appropriate statutory forums.
5. According to the petitioners, their services were
dispensed with during the pendency of these proceedings.
Therefore, it is clarified that depending upon the outcome of the
adjudication that may ensue, it will be open to the petitioners to
raise their claims for consequential benefits.
Writ petition is closed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp