Kerala High Court
A. Maheen vs Kerala State Industrial Enterprises ... on 2 March, 1994
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 7TH ASHADHA, 1940
WP(C).No. 35612 of 2010
-----------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
1. A. MAHEEN, S/O.AHAMMED KANNU,
TC 43/791, HIBA MANZIL,
JUBILY NAGAR 49, KALLATTUMUKKU,
MANACAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. SHAJAHAN, S/O.AZEEZ,
ATTARIKATTU VEEDU, PUTHUKAD SM LOCK,
POONTHURA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3. M. DILSHAD, S/O.MAJEED, TC 49/131,
P.R.A 44(1), PATTUVILAKAM HOUSE,
KAMALESHWARAM, MANACAUD P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
4. H. ASHARAF, S/O.HUSSAIN KANNU,
TC 46/344, S.A.H.MANZIL, PALLI STREET,
POONTHURA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
5. M.E. ASHRAF, S/O.MOHAMMED IBRAHIM,
TC 63/544, BAITHFULFALAH, PALLY STREET,
POONTHURA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 26.
BY ADV.SRI.M.SREEKUMAR
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES LTD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
ST.JOSEPH'S PRESS BUILDING, COTTON HILL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2. MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES LTD,
ST.JOSEPH'S PRESS BUILDING, COTTON HILL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
R1 & R2 BY SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR (SENIOR ADVOCATE)
SRI.P.GOPINATH MENON, SC
ADVS. SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS
SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 28-06-2018 ALONG WITH WPC.36887/2010 & WPC.7978/2011,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
mbr/
WP(C).No. 35612 of 2010
-----------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
---------------------
EXT. P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP NO.31457/93 IN OP.NO.17324/94
OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 2.3.1994.
EXT. P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30.6.2010
FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT. P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS
IN WPC.NO.21044/2010.
EXT. P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN
WPC.NO.21044/2010 DATED 19.7.2010.
EXT. P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 22.9.2010.
EXT.P5A : TRUE COPY OF THE PASS ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXT. P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 22.9.2010.
EXT.P6A : TRUE COPY OF PASS ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXT. P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 22.9.2010.
EXT.P7A : TRUE COPY OF PASS ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER.
EXT. P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 22.9.2010.
EXT.P8A : TRUE COPY OF PASS ISSUED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXT. P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE 5TH PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 22.9.2010.
EXT.P9A : TRUE COPY OF PASS ISSUED TO THE 5TH PETITIONER.
EXT. P10: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.HR/56/862 DATED 27.9.2010
ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXT. P11: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.HR/56/862 DATED 27.9.2010
ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXT. P12: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.HR/56/862 DATED 27.9.2010
ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER.
EXT. P13: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.HR/56/862 DATED 27.9.2010
ISSUED TO THE 4TH PETITIONER.
EXT. P14: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.HR/56/862 DATED 27.9.2010
ISSUED TO THE 5TH PETITIONER.
WP(C).No. 35612 of 2010
-----------------------
EXT. P15: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY MAHEEN ABOOBACKER
DATED 9.10.2010 UNDER RTI ACT.
EXT. P16: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.HR/72/999 DATED 18.10.2010.
EXT. P17: TRUE COPY OF THE FORMAT OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED
BETWEEN LICENSED PORTERS AND 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT. P18: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN
O.P.NO.8467/02 DATED 4.4.02.
EXT. P19: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE PUBLISHED IN MANGALAM DAILY
TVM EDITION DATED 20.11.2010.
EXT. P20: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE
1ST PETITIONER DATED 23.11.2010.
EXT. P21: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE
2ND PETITIONER DATED 23.11.2010.
EXT. P22: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE
3RD PETITIONER DATED 23.11.2010.
EXT. P23: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE
4TH PETITIONER DATED 23.11.2010.
EXT. P24: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE
5TH PETITIONER DATED 23.11.2010.
EXT. P25: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS
DATED 4.6.2011 BEFORE THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
----------------------
EXT.R1A: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.2.1994 IN CMP.NO.31457/93
IN O.P.NO.17324/93.
EXT.R1B: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 6.4.1994 IN CMP NOS.8408
& 6526 OF 1994 IN O.P.NO.17324 OF 1993.
EXT.R1C: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.3.1999 IN
O.P.NO.17324 OF 1993.
EXT.R1D: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 4.4.2002 IN
O.P.NOS.32061/99, 7803/2001 AND 8467/02.
EXT.R1E: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.4.2002 IN
O.P.NO.11315 OF 2002.
/TRUE COPY/
P.S.TO JUDGE
mbr/
03.07.2018.
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
.............................................
W.P.(C) Nos. 35612, 36887 of 2010
and
7978 of 2011
............................................................
Dated this the 28th day of June, 2018
JUDGMENT
These three writ petitions involve identical or similar issues. All the petitioners involved in these cases claim engagement as licensed porters in the Air Cargo complex operated by the first respondent/Kerala State Industrial Enterprises Ltd., (KSIE, for short).
2. The averment, on record, with respect to the claims made by the petitioners, is that they were being engaged as licensed porters by the KSIE in the past and therefore, that they should be given engagement in future and if not, at least a preference while the KSIE considers engagement of persons for licensed porters in the future.
3. It appears that the petitioners had earlier approached this Court and that several orders and judgments were issued by this Court, one among them being Ext.P4 judgment, produced along with W.P.(C) No.35612/2010. In this judgment, W.P.(C) Nos. 35612, 36887 of 2010 and 7978 of 2011 2 the KSIE was directed to consider the petitioners' claim, which led to Exts.P10 to P14 orders, again produced in W.P.(C) No.35612/2010, rejecting such claim, primarily stating that the claims of legal heirs of other porters, who have suffered permanent incapacitation/death while in service, would have precedence over their claims. The petitioners say that the contents of these orders are contrary to law and that the claim of legal heirs of the former porters could not have been a reason to decline their legitimate requests.
4. I have heard Sri.M.Sreekumar, C.E.Unnikrishnan and V.Prathapachandran, learned counsel appearing for the various writ petitioners in these cases and Sri.P.Gopinath Menon, learned Standing Counsel appearing for KSIE in all these cases.
5. Sri.M.Sreekumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.35612 of 2010, pointedly refers to the statements filed by the KSIE in the said case and says that even as per them there are no other persons as of now waiting in the queue claiming a better right than the petitioners. He says that, therefore, it is incumbent upon the KSIE to, at least, offer some W.P.(C) Nos. 35612, 36887 of 2010 and 7978 of 2011 3 preference to the petitioners when future notifications are issued for the purpose of engagement of licensed porters. The learned counsel for the petitioners in the other two cases also affirm this contention and added that it would cause no prejudice to the KSIE, if their clients are given some preference, since they were earlier working as licensed porters, thus therefore, being experienced and capable.
6. Sri.P.Gopinath Menon, learned Standing counsel appearing for the KSIE, submits that there is no proposal at present, as per his instructions, to issue a fresh notification calling for licensed porters and he says, therefore, that the contentions of the petitioners at the best are only speculative and conjectural at this stage. According to him, the petitioners do not have a vested right or even a legal right to claim that they should be given a preference while considering fresh engagements of licensed porters and he thus prays that these writ petitions be dismissed.
7. On a consideration of the countervailing submissions made by the learned counsel on either side as above, I am of W.P.(C) Nos. 35612, 36887 of 2010 and 7978 of 2011 4 the view that the consideration of the petitioners' request, at least for a preference, if and when a new notification is issued by the KSIE, would not per se cause any detriment or prejudice to the employer. This is because, if the petitioners are eligible on all other counts, including their physical capacity to do the work, the factum of their earlier experience can only be seen to their advantage and not to otherwise.
8. In that view, I see no impediment in the KSIE considering the claims of the petitioners, at least for a preference, if and when a new notification is issued. Of course, I am not concluding that the petitioners have a vested or a legal right for such a claim but the fact that they have worked earlier should normally be seen to their benefit.
9. In such circumstances, I order these writ petitions directing the KSIE to consider the petitioners' request for being preferentially treated when engagement of new licensed porters are considered through a fresh notification, as and when it is issued.
10. I make it clear that I have not concluded that the W.P.(C) Nos. 35612, 36887 of 2010 and 7978 of 2011 5 claims of the petitioners are valid or legal in any manner and that it is left to the Authorities of the KSIE to consider it, subject to the various other applicable critereon, before fresh engagement of licensed porters is made, consequent to a fresh notification.
For this purpose, the petitioners are at liberty to approach the competent Authority of the KSIE with a proper application along with a copy of this judgment, so as to facilitate a consideration of their request/claim as ordered herein.
This Writ Petition (Civil) is thus ordered.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE AMV/30/06/2018