IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 31ST MAY 2011 / 10TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 13734 of 2011(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- P.C.THOMAS, S/O. LATE CHACKO, CIRCLE SECRETARY, KERALA TELECOM CASUAL WORKERS UNION, PANICKAPARAMPIL HOUSE, VALLICHIRA POST, NEAR PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.KURUVILLA JACOB RESPONDENTS: -------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF TELECOM SERVICES, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, NEW DELHI. 2. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM, KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, B.S.N.L., SANCHAR BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. ADV. SMT.I.SHEELA DEVI FOR R2&3 SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA FOR R1 SC FOR BSNL – SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.13734 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of May 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is before this Court by way of second round of litigation. Earlier, the petitioner was being represented by his Union, who had filed the W.P.(C) 22538/2001 seeking for appropriate reliefs, which led to Ext.P2 judgment dated 21-01-2008, whereby the Writ Petition was disposed of, directing the 1st respondent/Union of India to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P5 representation preferred therein, within the time as stipulated by the Court. It was pursuant to the said verdict that, the 1st respondent passed Ext.P5 order, which is under challenge by the petitioner describing him as the 'Circle Secretary of Kerala Telecom Casual Workers union'. The only grievance projected in the Writ Petition is that, no opportunity of 'personal hearing' was given before finalising the proceedings as per Ext.P5 order, by virtue of which, the rights and liberties of the casual workers to have work under the BSNL has been virtually denied, which hence is sought to be intercepted by this Court. 2. Heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents as well. Going by the mandate of Ext.P2, no direction is contained in the said judgment to extend any opportunity of 'personal hearing' before the representation was finalised, passing W.P.(C) No.13734/2011 2 appropriate orders. It appears that no such opportunity was sought for by the petitioner as well, when the judgment was rendered and as such, the petitioner cannot be heard to say that final orders pursuant to Ext.P5 judgment should have been rendered only after hearing the petitioner. Ext.P2 representation preferred by the petitioner has already been considered and Ext.P5 order has been passed, turning down the claim. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order, which is a 'speaking order'. Interference is declined. The Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly. vdv P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE