Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. The petitioners 1 to 22 in this Original Petition were originally appointed in the Kerala Fisheries Corporation Ltd., a fully owned Kerala Government undertaking as Skipper, Fishing Engineer, Deckhand and Assistant Engineer etc. on various dates from 1975 onwards. Consequent on the heavy loss suffered by the Kerala Fisheries Corporation the Government vide G.O. Ms. No.7/84/TF & PD dt. January 27, 1984 ordered the formation of Co-operative Societies with the Fisheries Welfare Societies as primary members and at State Level Apex Federation, called 'Kerala State Co- operative Federation for Fisheries Development Ltd.' (MAT-SYAFED). It was ordered in this G.O. that simultaneous with the establishment of the Co-operative Organisation and functions of the State Public Undertakings in the Fisheries Sector, namely, Kerala Fisheries Corporation Ltd. etc. will be taken over by the new Organisation namely, Matsyafed. According to the petitioners, the Kerala Fisheries Corporation was accordingly wound up and its entire assets including deep sea Fishing Trawlers were transferred to the Matsyafed. The assets and liabilities were later assessed and published as on March 31, 1988 by Ext. P2 Government Order, G.O.P. No. 28/88/F & PD dt. July 14, 1988. The Government finalised the process of transfer as a result of which the Nylon Net factory at Ernakulam; the 4 deep Sea Trawlers; the Fish Meal Plant at Kozhikode; the Canning & Freezing Plant at Cochin etc. were transferred to Matsyafed since these units are viable and profitable. Various other items were also transferred to the Matsyafed. In regard to the employees of the Fisheries Corporation Ltd., G.O.P. 28/88 dt. July 14, 1988 also made certain decisions. The 107 employees working in the units, who were transferred to Government in 1977 were already absorbed by the Government. Besides this, by another order G.O. Ms. No.4/88/F&PD dt. February 20, 1988 the Government absorbed 40 persons from the Kerala Fisheries Corporation. Besides all these, the first respondent agreed to take over the pension liabilities of all the retired employees of the Kerala Fisheries Corporation also. Some of them were duly retrenched after receiving the retrenchment compensation and other benefits. Thereafter the Government had discussions with the Trade Union Leaders of the Kerala Fisheries Corporation and ultimately the Government decided to take all the retrenched persons in the service of any of the agencies of the Government such as Matsyafed, Welfare Fund Board and Campuram Primary Co-operative Society etc. The remaining employees of the Kerala Fisheries Corporation were given option to have certain benefits on voluntary retirement. Those who were not prepared to have the option exercised for voluntary retirement were ordered to be absorbed in the Matsyafed or in the Kerala Fishermen's Welfare Fund Board or Campuram Fisheries Co-operative Society or in any one of the 81 Fisheries Development Welfare Co-operative Societies. Thus, according to the petitioners, the 222 members of the Staff of the Kerala Fisheries Corporation were either absorbed in any of the above mentioned institutions as permanent employees or in the Government Department itself except those who voluntarily opted for retirement after receiving certain benefits as specified in Ext. P2 Government Order. As far as the petitioners were concerned, they could not be absorbed in the Matsyafed or in any other institutions as permanent employees. On the contrary, they continued to serve the Matsyafed on yearly contract basis.

2. As already noted, petitioners 1 to 22 were originally appointed in the Kerala Fisheries Corporation Ltd. as Skipper, Fishing Engineer, Deckhand and Assistant Engineer etc., on various dates from 1975 onwards. Petitioners 23 to 30 were appointed on different dates during 1989-90 in the Matsyafed in different posts on yearly contract basis. The various service details of the petitioners regarding joining time in the Fisheries Corporation, their status and later their appointment in Matsyated with reference to dates, category etc. Name Joining time in KFC Category (Status) Date of joining in Matsyafed & Section Category (Status)

3. The point highlighted by the petitioners in this original petition is that they are entitled to get their services regularised either in the Matsyafed or in the Fisheries Department of the Government of Kerala on account of their long and continuous service rendered in Fisheries Corporation as well as in the Matsyafed. According to the petitioners, some of them have got 16 years continuous service since their appointment in the Kerala Fisheries Corporation and some of them have three years continuous service since their appointment in the Matsyafed as on the date of filing of this Original Petition in 1991. At any rate, having regard to their long and continuous service either in the Matsyafed alone or in the Kerala Fisheries Corporation or in both, they are entitled to get their service regularised in the Matsyafed or in the Government Department. Since the petitioners failed to get their services regularised under the Kerala Fisheries Corporation or under any of the Government Departments they have approached this Court with the present writ petition seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners in the respective categories in which they are working in the Matsyafed or in the alternative to regularise their services in the Department of the Government of Kerala in identical posts with effect from the date of their original entry in the service of the Kerala Fisheries Corporation or in the Matsyafed as the case may be and for other incidental reliefs. Respondents have entered appearance and filed counter affidavit contesting the claim of the petitioners. According to respondents 2 to 4, the petitioners are not entitled to regularisation in service and in fact there is no need for engaging regular crew in the service of respondents 2 to 4. Respondents 2 to 4 have a further case that the petitioners have efficacious alternative remedy under Section 150 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 for redressal of their grievances. The first respondent, State has also filed a counter affidavit in which the stand taken is that the petitioners are not entitled to be regularised in service.

4. Having considered the rival contention's, I am satisfied that the petitioners are entitled to get their services regularised in the service of respondents 2 to 4. In this contention, it has to be noted that some of the petitioners have put in 16 years of service since their appointment in the Kerala Fisheries Corporation till date. Some of them have three years of service to their credit since their appointment in the Matsyafed. In any view of the matter, their long and continuous service in the Kerala Fisheries Corporation or in Matsyafed or in both will entitle them to get their services regularised in the service of the second respondent and to deny them regularisation and to keep them on contract basis perpetually is unjust and arbitrary. In Smt. P.K. Narayani v. State of Kerala AIR 1984 SC 534, the petitioners who had been serving as employees of the State of Kerala or its Public Sector Undertaking for the past few years challenged the action of the employer in terminating their services to make room for the candidates selected by the Kerala Public Service Commission. The Supreme Court directed that the petitioners and all others similarly placed should be allowed to appear for the next examination that the Public Service Commission may hold without raising the age bar and till then the petitioners and Ors. were allowed to continue in service provided there are vacancies. No doubt, the Supreme Court clarified that the order will not confer any right on the employees to continue in service or of being selected by the Commission otherwise than in accordance with the relevant rules and regulations. The interference of the Court was to resolve what the Court itself described as 'a human problem which has more than one facet'. Again in Dr. A.K. Jain v. Union of India 1987 (Supp) SCC 497, the service of ad-hoc Assistant Medical Officers who were initially appointed for six months but were continued for periods ranging upto four years were sought to be terminated to accommodate the candidates selected by the Union Public Service Commission. The petitioners claimed that their services should be regularised and their seniority should be fixed from the date of their initial entry in service as ad-hoc appointees. In the counter, the Union of India contended that ad-hoc appointments were made by the General Managers of the Zonal Railways to tide over temporary shortage of doctors and their tenures were extended till regular selection was made by the UPSC and appointments were made by the President of India. Since the appointing authority was the President of India, such ad-hoc appointments by the General Managers of the Zonal Railways could not be regularised. It was further contended that the ad-hoc appointees were granted age relaxation and were asked to appear at two special selections based on interview to be held by the UPSC in 1982 and 1985. The petitioners were those ad-hoc appointees who had either failed to avail of the special benefit of selection or had appeared and failed to qualify. In these circumstances, it was contended that they could not be regularised in service. Notwithstanding the above factual position the Court directed regularisation of services of all doctors appointed upto October 1, 1984 in consultation with UPSC on the evaluation of their work and conduct based on the confidential reports in respect of the period subsequent to October 1, 1982. Such regularisation was to be from the dates from which they are continuously working. The services of those not regularised were allowed to be terminated. The Apex Court in Bharatiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch v. Union of India AIR 1987 SC 2342, while dealing with the question of daily rated casual labour employed under P & T Department referred to the State's obligation under Part IV of the Constitution and observed as under: