Kerala High Court
P. Sreedharan vs Project Director, Sted-(Science And ... on 18 December, 2025
WA 1243 OF 2023
1
2025:KER:97620
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WA NO. 1243 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 22.05.2023 IN WP(C)
NO.6709 OF 2010 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS:
1 P. SREEDHARAN,
AGED 59 YEARS
EX- PROJECT ASSISTANT, STED - (SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
ENTREPRENEURSHIP DEVELOPMENT) PROJECT, KOZHIKODE
RESIDING AT PUTHIYOTTIL HOUSE, MUCHUKUNNU P.O.,
QUILANDY- KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673307
2 P. MADHURI,
EX-RECEPTIONIST, STED-(SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
ENTREPRENEURSHIP DEVELOPMENT) PROJECT, KOZHIKODE-
673002 RESIDING AT "AMMA", NEAR GOVT. HSS SCHOOL,
FEROKE P.O., KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673631
3 P.M. GEEJABHAI,
EX- COMPUTER FACULTY, STED-(SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
ENTREPRENEURSHIP DEVELOPMENT) PROJECT, KOZHIKODE-
673002. RESIDING AT "SANTHOSH", 29/1265, KOTTOLI,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673016
BY ADVS.
SHRI.TITUS MANI
SHRI.SWAROOP A.P.
SRI.BINNY THOMAS
SRI.P.A.JACOB
WA 1243 OF 2023
2
2025:KER:97620
RESPONDENTS:
1 PROJECT DIRECTOR, STED-(SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
ENTREPRENEURSHIP DEVELOPMENT) PROJECT,
5TH FLOOR, INDUS AVENUE, KALLAI ROAD, KOZHIKODE, PIN
- 673002
2 EX-OFFICIO SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA SCIENCE
AND TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT & CHAIRMAN, STEC (SCIENCE,
TECHNOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE)
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SASTHRA BHAVAN, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004
3 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
KERALA STATE COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND
ENVIRONMENT, 4TH FLOOR, KSCSTE, SHASTHRA BHAVAN,
PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.12.2025, THE COURT ON 18.12.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA 1243 OF 2023
3
2025:KER:97620
JUDGMENT
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.
The present intra-court appeal filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 assails the judgment dated 22.05.2023, passed in WP(C) No.6709 of 2010 whereby the Writ Petition filed by the appellants has been dismissed. Facts:-
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants were dismissed from service. The said order of dismissal was challenged in OP No.3535/2003 before this Court wherein it was held that the order of dismissal was arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice, unsustainable and liable to be quashed. Certain directions were also issued to the respondents.
3. In the meanwhile, the appellants were ordered to be reinstated into service on 29.05.2007 and continued till final orders were passed in the disciplinary proceedings. The question with regard to grant of back wages for the period they were kept out of service was ordered to be decided only after the conclusion of the WA 1243 OF 2023 4 2025:KER:97620 disciplinary proceedings, subject to the result of the disciplinary proceedings. The afore mentioned judgment was assailed in WA No.659/2007 by the Project Director. The Division Bench of this Court after a detailed discussion of the issue vide its judgment Ext.P1(a) dated 13.04.2007 confirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The only issue which was left to be adjudicated was the appellant's entitlement to backwages which was raised in the 2 nd Writ Petition filed before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge after relying upon Sec.33(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act for short) had dismissed the Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the question whether the appellants fall within the definition of workman under Sec.2(s) of the ID Act and should be relegated to the reliefs under the ID Act.
Appellant's Contentions:-
4. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the learned Single Judge wrongly came to the conclusion that the issue with regard to backwages requires a detailed evidence to be WA 1243 OF 2023 5 2025:KER:97620 read and to find out as to whether they were gainfully employed or not since their employment was only on daily wage basis and not on permanent or on regular basis. Therefore, provisions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked and the issue with regard to payment of backwages is left open to be considered in appropriate stage. The Learned Single Judge also came to the conclusion that there is no material brought on record with regard to the outcome of the proceedings pending before the conciliation officer, therefore, dismissed the Writ Petition.
5. The Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the learned Single Judge was inappropriate and incorrect to overturn the findings of the 1 st Writ Petition which was confirmed by the Division Bench. The Learned counsel for the appellant contended that since the appellants were kept out of service without there being any fault on their part, they were eligible for backwages on this ground alone. Therefore the order of the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside.
WA 1243 OF 2023 6 2025:KER:97620 Respondent's Contentions:-
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that the learned Single Judge is absolutely correct in coming to the conclusion that the appellants being workmen, the remedy lies before the Industrial/Labour Court where they can approach and seek the payment of backwages. In the Writ Petition filed by the appellants in paragraph 2, the appellants have clearly stated that they were not properly continued in service and now, they are working in another private concern. Admittedly, they were gainfully employed somewhere else during the period which they were kept out of service. In such a situation, the learned Single Judge has rightly arrived at the conclusion that a detailed evidence is required to be laid before granting back wages. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal being bereft of merit and substance is liable to be dismissed.
Discussion & Analysis:-
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
WA 1243 OF 2023 7 2025:KER:97620
8. In view of the aforesaid discussions and the fact that no materials were produced by the appellants to show that they were not gainfully employed somewhere else, during the period they were out of service, the learned Single Judge has rightly arrived at the conclusion that without leading evidence in appropriate proceedings, the question of backwages cannot be decided. We are of the considered opinion that the learned single Judge has not committed any error. The Writ Appeal being bereft of merit and substance is hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs.
sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI JUDGE sd/-
P. V. BALAKRISHNAN JUDGE Nsd