Kerala High Court
Raghavan.K.I vs Kerala State Electronics Development
Author: P.V.Asha
Bench: P.V.Asha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/11TH KARTHIKA, 1938
WP(C).No. 30897 of 2010 (J)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
1. RAGHAVAN.K.I., NO.145331,
KELTRON CONTROL DIVISION,
AROOR, ALLEPPEY - 688 534.
2. GOPI.P.K, NO.145411,
KELTRON CONTROLDIVISION,
AROOR., ALLEPPEY - 688 534.
3. RAVIKUMAR.R, NO.145320,
KELTRON CONTROL DIVISION,
AROOR, ALLEPPEY - 688 534.
4. SARAVANAN.U.N, NO.145342,
KELTRON CONTROL DIVISION,
AROOR, ALLEPPEY - 688 534.
5. VELAYUDHAN.P.N, NO.145386,
KELTRON CONTROL DIVISION,
AROOR, ALLEPPEY - 688 534.
6. SADANANDAN.P.C, NO.145364,
KELTRON CONTROL DIVISION,
AROOR, ALLEPPEY - 688 534.
7. SASIDHARAN.P.P, NO.145433,
KELTRON CONTROL DIVISION,
AROOR, ALLEPPEY - 688 534.
8. SASI.K.K, NO.145353,
KELTRON CONTROL DIVISION,
AROOR, ALLEPPEY - 688 534.
9. THANKAMMA.C.A, NO.145422,
KELTRON CONTROL DIVISION,
AROOR, ALLEPPEY - 688 534.
10. KARTHIYAYANI.I.P, NO.145397,
KELTRON CONTROL DIVISION,
AROOR, ALLEPPEY - 688 534.
--2--
--2--
WP(C).No. 30897 of 2010 (J)
---------------------------
11. MYDHILI.K.K, KALATHIL HOUSE,
AROOR, ALLEPPEY - 688 534.
12. PRABHAVATHI.P, NO.145444,
KELTRON CONTROL DIVISION,
AROOR, ALLEPPEY - 688 534.
13. RADHAMANI.P.V,NO.145400,
KELTRON CONTROL DIVISION,
AROOR, ALLEPPEY - 688 534.
BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. KERALA STATE ELECTRONICS DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED , KELTRON HOUSE,
VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. THE SENIOR PERSONAL OFFICER,
KELTRON CONTROL DIVISION, AROOR,
ALAPPUZHA - 688 534.
3. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SC
R3 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SANTHOSH PETER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 02-11-2016 ALONG WITH WPC.31481/2010 & 33321/2010,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
mbr/
WP(C).No. 30897 of 2010 (J)
---------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXT. P1 : TRUE COPY OF CALL LETTER DATED 4.3.88 RECEIVED BY THE
5TH PETITIONER.
EXT. P2 : TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 7.6.1988 WITH A LIST
PUBLISHED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT. P3 : TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 19.9.88 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
EXT. P4 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 11.11.2009 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
mbr/
P.V.ASHA, J.
-----------------------------------------------------
W.P(C) Nos.30897 of 2010-J
31481 of 2010-T &
33321 of 2010-M
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2016
JUDGMENT
The grievance of the petitioners in all these cases is over the denial of the benefit of regularisation with effect from 04.10.1997 as given to 12 casual labourers under the 1st respondent as per Ext.P1 order, while granting them regularisation w.e.f 11.11.2009 as per G.O(Ms)No.141/09/ID only, which is produced as Ext.P1 in W.P(c)No.31481 of 2010. The petitioners in all these cases are casual workers working under the 1st respondent- Kerala State Electronics Development Corporation Limited (`KELTRON' for short) for the period from 1985, 1987, etc.
2. All the petitioners in W.P(c)No.30897 of 2010, were appointed as Casual Labourers in the respondent's factory at Aroor, on 26.9.1988. All of them submitted applications when the respondent invited applications by notification dated 17.2.1987. After subjecting them to an interview in March 1988, their names were included in the select list published on 7.6.1988. W.P(C) Nos.30897 of 2010-J 31481 of 2010-T & 33321 of 2010-M 2 Appointments were given on the basis of their rank in the select list. Their demand for regularisation was taken up by the trade union, along with that of 11 workmen having ITI and 3 trainees, in I.D.No.13 of 1993. The petitioners submit that even though the 2 issues viz. (1) whether the regularisation of 11 ITI workers and 3 trainees and (2) regularisation of other construction workers, were the issues referred for adjudication, the Industrial Tribunal considered the case of the ITI workers and trainees alone and did not consider the case of the petitioners. The Tribunal directed regularisation in the case of 11 ITI persons and 3 other workers.
3. On the basis of conciliation talks with the management and trade unions, it was decided to absorb 14 workers i.e 11 ITI workers and 3 trainees in the regular service. Since the management did not honour the settlement, the trade unions took up the matter and got the issue along with that of regularisation of other construction workers referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal in I.D.13 of 1993. Tribunal directed regularisation of the 14 casual workers and did not consider the case of the petitioners and other construction W.P(C) Nos.30897 of 2010-J 31481 of 2010-T & 33321 of 2010-M 3 workers. The petitioners thereupon filed O.P.No.30857 of 1999 aggrieved by the award of the Industrial Tribunal. At the same time, the management challenged the award to the extent it directed regularisation, filing O.P.No.23313 of 1998. The O.P by the management was allowed. However, the award of the Tribunal was restored in the judgment in W.A.No.289 of 2004. The management took up the matter in SLP before the Supreme Court.
4. During the pendency of the SLP, the Minister held a meeting with the management and the trade union. The Management submitted a proposal to regularise 89 workers. While the SLP was pending before the Supreme Court, a meeting was held by the Minister for Industries on 10.05.2007 with the officials of KELTRON and the trade unions. On the basis of the decision taken in that meeting, the KELTRON forwarded a list of 89 casual labourers for regularisation. On the basis of the decision in the said meeting, the SLP was withdrawn by the management. Ext.P4 order dated 11.11.2009 was issued by the Government on the basis of the list of casual labourers published on 01.01.2008 by the KELTRON for regularisation. W.P(C) Nos.30897 of 2010-J 31481 of 2010-T & 33321 of 2010-M 4
5. By Ext.P4 order, the Government granted permission to the Managing Director, KELTRON to regularise the service of all the 89 casual labourers working in various units. However, 12 casual labourers of KELTRON who were respondents in SL.P.No.17945 of 2006 were ordered to be regularised w.e.f 4.10.1997, the date of award in I.D.13/1993 without back arrears and directing that the arrears would be paid to them from 18.08.2006, the date of judgment in W.A.No.289 of 2004. However, in the case of the remaining 77 casual labourers, regularisation was permitted only with effect from the date of the order. Aggrieved by this order the petitioners have approached this Court alleging discrimination. The petitioners in all the other cases are also casual workers included among the 77 casual labourers. The learned counsel for the petitioners points out that all the 13 petitioners in W.P(c).No.30897 of 2010 were parties to the very same I.D, O.P, W.A as well as the SLP, as in the case of those who were granted regularisation w.e.f 4.10.1997.
6. In the counter affidavit filed by the Government it is stated that in the case of the ITI hands and trainees there was an W.P(C) Nos.30897 of 2010-J 31481 of 2010-T & 33321 of 2010-M 5 agreement for their regularisation and the Industrial Tribunal in its award dated 4.10.1997 directed their regularisation. But in the case of the petitioners there was no such award or direction. Therefore, the workers whose case was allowed in the award were regularised from the date of the award.
7. The KELTRON in its counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C). No.31481/2010 stated that it did not propose any mode of regularisation of the 89 casual labourers and it was the Government which thought it fit to issue Ext.P1. The relevant portion of the counter affidavit in paragraph 6 reads as follows:
"It is pertinent to mention that this respondent had not proposed any mode of regularisation of the 89 casual labourers. It is the 2nd respondent Government which apprised of these facts had thought it fit to issue Ext P1."
8. The contention of the petitioners is that the 13 petitioners in W.P.(C).No.30897/2010, were also parties to the very same ID, O.P, W.A and the very same SLP. According to them their case was not even considered by the Labour Court despite the fact that it was an issue referred for adjudication. There was no reason for discriminating them.
9. I heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent and the W.P(C) Nos.30897 of 2010-J 31481 of 2010-T & 33321 of 2010-M 6 learned Govt Pleader.
10. From Ext.P4 order of regularisation, it is seen that the Government have passed the order after examining the proposal of the KELTRON to regularise 89 casual labourers. Government while issuing orders of regularisation directed regularisation of 12 persons from 4.10.97 and that of others from the date of Ext.P4. But KELTRON's version is that they did not propose any mode of regularisation and their proposal was to regularise all the 89. Therefore, the Government ought to have adopted a uniform standard in the case of regularisation.
11. Even though there was an award in favour of the 12 persons who are granted regularisation, the issue as to the regularisation of the petitioners were also referred for adjudication to the Tribunal in the very same ID. Above all, the order of regularisation was issued on the basis of the decision arrived at in the meeting convened by the Minister and thereafter on the basis of the proposal furnished by the KELTRON. When the KELTRON states that the proposal was for regularisation of all the 89 alike, there was no reason for the Government to fix a particular date for the 12 persons just W.P(C) Nos.30897 of 2010-J 31481 of 2010-T & 33321 of 2010-M 7 because there was an award in their favour. When all the working conditions of the casual labourers were the same, the Government ought to have adopted a uniform standard and regularised all the 89 causal workers with effect from the very same date.
12. The petitioners were also agitating their claim for regularisation all along as in the case of the 12 persons who got an award in their favour on account of an earlier settlement in their favour. But the absence of a settlement in favour of other casual workers or absence of an award in their favour should not have been a factor to subject the 77 casual labourers to an unequal and discriminatory treatment in the matter of regularisation, when there are several persons among the 77 far senior to the 12 persons who are granted regularisation from an earlier date. All the 89 persons were performing identical duties and responsibilities with identical conditions of service. Therefore, once the Government chose to grant regularisation, it was only just and proper that all the 89 persons were given similar treatment.
13. In the above circumstances, it is only appropriate that W.P(C) Nos.30897 of 2010-J 31481 of 2010-T & 33321 of 2010-M 8 the petitioners in W.P(c).No.30897of 2010 are also granted the very same benefit as in the case of the 12 persons as per Ext.P1 order. When the working conditions in the case of all the casual labourers are similar, there is no justification in denying the benefit of regularisation to a section of casual workers, adopting a different yardstick without any rationale and in violation of their fundamental rights to equality before law, equality of opportunity in matters relating to employment guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Ext.P4 order to the extent it does not grant regularisation to the petitioners with effect from 4.10.1997 is set aside.
Hence, the Writ Petitions are allowed. The respondents shall re-consider the cases of all the petitioners in these Writ Petitions for regularisation as in the case of the 12 persons granted regularisation w.e.f 4.10.1997 and to issue orders accordingly, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
(P.V.ASHA, JUDGE) rtr/