Kerala High Court
The Trichur Co-Operative Spinning Mill vs The State Of Kerala on 9 December, 2014
Author: K.Vinod Chandran
Bench: K.Vinod Chandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
TUESDAY,THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936
WP(C).No. 17312 of 2004 (J)
------------------------------------------
PETITIONER(S) :
-------------------------
1. THE TRICHUR CO-OPERATIVE SPINNING MILL
WORKERS UNION, P.O.VAZHANI, VIRUPPAKKA, TRICHUR.
2. T.PARAMESWARAN, ROLLER COVER HELPER,
THE TRICHUR CO-OPERATIVE SPINNING MILLS,
P.O.VAZHANI, VIRUPPAKKA, TRICHUR.
BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN
RESPONDENT(S) :
----------------------------
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF HANDLOOMS AND TEXTILES,
THE DIRECTORATE OF HANDLOOMS & TEXTILES, VIKAS, BHAVAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3. THE TRICHUR CO-OPERATIVE SPINNING MILLS,
P.O.VAZHANI, VIRUPPAKKA, TRICHUR,
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER.
4. T.R.MOHANDAS, SECURITY GUARD,
TRICHUR CO-OPERATIVE SPINNING MILLS, P.O.VAZHANI, VIRUPPAKKA,
TRICHUR.
5. M.K.HAKKIM,SECURITY GUARD,
TRICHUR CO-OPERATIVE SPINNING MILLS, P.O.VAZHANI, VIRUPPAKKA,
TRICHUR.
6. K.K.SAID MUHAMMED, SECURITY GUARD,
TRICHUR CO-OPERATIVE SPINNING MILLS, P.O.VAZHANI,
VIRUPPAKKA, TRICHUR.
R3 BY ADVS. SRI.K.ANAND (A.201)
SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 09-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
Msd.
K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
=====================
W.P.(C) No.17312 of 2004
======================
Dated this the 9th day of December, 2014
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners, representative union of workmen, and a workman, challenged the appointment of respondents 4 to 6. The short contention raised in challenge of the appointment is that the posts to which they have been appointed were reserved for Ex- servicemen even as per the resolution of the Board of Directors and the rules framed thereunder. Respondents 4 to 6 admittedly are not Ex-servicemen.
2. The learned counsel for the third respondent would seriously assail the locus standi of the petitioners. The learned counsel would contend that the petitioners are the representative union of workmen and a workman and they cannot agitate the cause of Ex- servicemen before this Court. In any event that issue need not be considered since admittedly respondents 4 to 6 were appointed only for a short period on contract basis. Respondents 4 and 5 are said to be not working under the third respondent now. The sixth respondent is working under the third respondent but as a result of a subsequent appointment to the post of Lab Attender. The writ petition hence would stand dismissed as infructuous.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE vpv