IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 2912 of 2009()
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, MATSYAFED,
... Petitioner
2. THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION
3. THE PLANT MANAGER, MATSYAFED ICE AND
Vs
1. D.VARGHESE, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.DEVASSYA,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS
For Petitioner :SRI.SHYAM KRISHNAN, SC, MATSYAFED
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN
Dated :20/01/2010
O R D E R
C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &
V.K. MOHANAN, JJ.
--------------------------------------------
W.A. Nos. 2912, 2915, 2917, 2918 &
2929 OF 2009
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of January, 2010
JUDGMENT
Ramachandran Nair, J.
Heard standing counsel appearing for the appellant in all the
connected Writ Appeals, and counsel appearing for respondents. The
judgment under appeal is one whereunder the learned single Judge
directed the appellant to give arrears of wages and other benefits
pursuant to government order produced as Ext.P4 dated 22.3.2007
regularizing 17 employees in the appellant’s organisation. Even
though counsel for the appellant contended that contesting respondents
were employed on contract basis in the fishing vessels operated by the
appellant, those vessels were abandoned years back and there was no
occasion to employ them thereafter, it is seen that Government vide
Ext.P4 regularized the services of these 17 persons with retrospective
effect from 22.4.1996. It is seen from the Government order that
certain supernumerary posts were created to accommodate all these 17
2
persons. While the case of the appellant is that these persons have not
worked for all the period until their regularization by Government
order, counsel appearing for respondents who have already retired from
service and counsel appearing for the four persons who are in service
submitted that even after the abandonment of the vessels all the
contesting respondents were employed on regular basis in various other
categories of employment which are the posts referred to in the
Government order. If this is the factual position, then we see no reason
to deny employment benefits to these persons whose services are
regularized vide Ext.P4 irrespective of whether they have already
retired or not. In fact in the earlier round of litigation even though the
Division Bench did not consider the Writ Appeal on merits, it made an
observation that if there is no scope for continuous employment of
those temporarily appointed on contract basis, then it would be open to
the appellant to take appropriate steps which necessarily means that
they could have been retrenched. However, there is nothing to indicate
that the appellant has taken any steps in this regard. Even though
standing counsel appearing for the appellant produced office order
dated 5.6.1998 proposing to employ 15 ;persons in alternate jobs
3
indicating that they were not in employment for the period of three
years, we do not know why the Government did not take this into
account while giving retrospective regularization, that is from
22.4.1996. In other words, Government acted against the interests of
the appellant by granting regularization for employment to these
persons who have not worked for three years. In our view, the
Government order is binding on the appellant which is nothing but a
organsation under the control of the Government, and for this reason,
we should dismiss the Writ Appeals. Further, even though the
judgment in the Writ Appeal on regularization did not consider the
appellant’s case on merits, appellant has not filed review or taken any
steps to get the judgment of the learned single Judge directing
regularization modified. In the circumstances, we do not find no merit
in the Writ Appeals and the same are dismissed.
(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)
Judge.
(V.K. MOHANAN)
Judge.
kk
4