IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 4816 of 2009(W) ------------------------- ID.10/2007 of INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. MRS. MOLLY MATHEW, W/O. ABRAHAM RAJU, AGED 36 YEARS, PERATHOTTIYIL HOUSE, VELLOOR.P.O, PAMPADY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. SAUDAMINI THAMPAN, PUTHENPARAMBIL, ERAVNINALLOOR.P.O, KOTTAYAM. 3. RUBY OUSPEH, VARIA VEETTIL, PAYYAPPADI.P.O, PUTHUPPALLY, KOTTAYAM. 4. ALIYAMMA THOMAS, CHALAKUZHI PAYYAPPADI.P.O, PUTHUPPALLY, KOTTAYAM. 5. SUBHAKUMARI, KOCHITTIYEDATH, VETTOOR.P.O, KOTTAYAM. 6. LIZY KURIAKOSE, KINATTUMMOOTTIL, PAYYAPPADI.P.O, PUTHUPPALLY, KOTTAYAM. 7. SOBHANA MOHANAN, POONGAZHA VEEDU, MEENAMPADOM.P.O, KOTTAYAM. 8. V.M. ANNAMMA, MADHURAM CHERRY, MEENAMPADAM.P.O, KOTTAYAM. 9. LIZY MATHEW, THIDUPPIL, MEENAPADOM.P.O, KOTTAYAM. 10. LISAMMA BABU, VALIYAPARAMBIL, THIRUVANCHOOR.P.O, KOTTAYAM. WPC NO.4816/2009 11. SIVALAMMA GOPALAN, KOKKOTTIL, VELLOOR.P.O, KOTTAYAM. 12. MANJU JOHN, VALLIKKUNNEL, POTHANPURAM.P.O, PAMPADI, KOTTAYAM. 13. SALI GEORGE, PALAKAYIL, CHATHANIKKAD.P.O, KOTTAYAM. 14. SUMA.A.V, ANJANKIYIL, ANIKKAD.P.O, KOTTAYAM. 15. PONNAMMA VIJAYAKUMAR, ANUB BHAVAN, PAMPADI.P.O, KOTTAYAM. 16. INDIRA DEVI, EDATTU, PANGODA.P.O, KOTTAYAM. 17. GEETHA RAJU, KALARIKKAL, ARUMANNOOR.P.O, KOTTAYAM. 18. BETTY KURIAKOSE, JATHIKUZHIYIL, MALAM.P.O, KOTTAYAM. 19. BABY CHACKO, MALIYIL, NEERIKKADU.P.O, KOTTAYAM. 20. SHERLOY PRAKASH, THONNANAM KUNNIL, VELOOR.P.O, KOTTAYAM. 21. BINSI ABRAHAM, VAKATHANATHU MOOLAYIL, KARIMBANI.P.O, KOTTAYAM. 22. SAVITHRY LEKSHMANAN, KATTAYIL, POOVANTHURUTHU.P.O, KOTTAYAM. 23. SWAYAM PRABHA, THONNANAMKUNNEL, VELLOOR.P.O, KOTTAYAM. 24. SISSI, MALAMTHITTAYIL, VELLOOR.P.O, KOTTAYAM. WPC NO.4816/2009 25. ALIYAMMA JOSEPH, MADATHUMKUNNEL, NEERIKKAD.P.O, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL THOMAS(T) SMT.K.V.RESHMI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE BEVARAGES (M&M) CORPORATION LTD., SASTHA KRIPA OFFICE COMPLEX, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. KERALA STATE BEVARAGES CORPORATION LTD., S.H. MOUNT.P.O, KOTTAYAM, REP. BY ITS MANAGER. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, LABOUR AND REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. AISWARYA KUDUMBASREE UNIT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MALAM.P.O, AREEPARAMBU, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. MR.P.N.SANTHOSH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.ELVIN PETER.P.J., SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.4816 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 25th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are contract labourers, who are presently working in the 2nd respondent’s establishment for pasting labels on the liquor bottles marketed by the 2nd respondent. According to the petitioners, tenders have been invited for awarding the work on contract basis and that the same has been finalized in favour of the 4th respondent. The petitioners submit that the volume of work available is limited, and therefore, if new workers are inducted by the contractor that will affect their volume of work and consequently, their earnings. It is stated that the claim made on their behalf for regularization of their services under the 1st respondent is pending consideration as ID No.10/2007 on the filed of the Industrial Tribunal, Kollam. It is stated that pending finalization of the aforesaid industrial dispute, new workmen should not be inducted as otherwise, it will result reduction of their wages. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned standing counsel for the respondent Corporation. WP(C) No.4816/2009 -2- 3. Admittedly, it was pursuant to a tender notice issued by the 2nd respondent that the 4th respondent participated in the tender and the bid has been finalized in his favour. Even according to the petitioners, the tender conditions are such that entitles the contractor to induct his set of workmen. If that be so, the petitioners cannot resist the contractual right of the 4th respondent to induct his workmen. If that be so, for the mere reason that there is a possibility of their wages getting reduced, this Court will not be justified in interdicting the 4th respondent or respondents 1 & 2 from inducting new workmen. Therefore, the relief sought for by the petitioners in the writ petition cannot be granted. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg