IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER TUESDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1930 WA.No. 710 of 2004(A) ---------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.8603/2003 Dated 05/11/2003 .................... APPELLANT/ 2ND RESPONDENT IN THE O.P: --------------------------------------------------------------- THE EXECUTIVE HEAD, AIR INDIA, INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, NEDUMBASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & IST RESPONDENT IN THE O.P.: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SANEESH A.P. AIKKARA HOUSE, THURAVUMKARA, KANJOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. NIDIN RAJ, ETTUNGAPPADY HOUSE, THURAVUMKARA, KANJOOR, ERNAKULAM DIST. 3. BIJU K.N. , KOOVAPARAMBIL, KANJOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. RAJESH K.R., KOTTEPPILLY, KANJOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. RADHAKRISHNAN K.B., KOTTEPPILLY, KANJOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. W.A.NO.710/2004 -2- 6. UNNI.K.DEVAN, KALLUMKOTTAYIL, KANJOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 7. JOBBY K.S. , KAPRAKKATTU, KANJOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 8. ANOOPKUMAR V.P., VENALKUDY, KANJOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 9. SARINKUMAR V.R., VENALKUDY, KANJOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 10. SUMESH A.S. , AIKKARA HOUSE, KANJOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 11. SUNIL K.P, . KOOTTUNGAL, KANJOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 12. PRASAD E.V., ETTUNGAPPADY HOUSE, KANJOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 13. SAJAN E.S., ETTUNGAPPADY HOUSE, KANJOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 14. PRAMOD N.K., NELLATHARA, PUTHENKURISSU, KARIMUGAL, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 15. SURESH N.K., NARIGANA HOUSE, KANJOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 16. CHAIRMAN, COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT SOCIETY LTD., NEDUMBASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. R1 TO R15 ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. FOR R2 TO R15 SRI.G.P.SHINOD FOR R2 TO R15 SRI.MANU V. FOR R2 TO R15 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ----------------------------------------------------- W.A.No.710 of 2004 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 4th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT A.K.Basheer, J. Appellant, the Executive Head of Air India at International Airport, Nedumbassery has preferred this writ appeal impugning the judgment of the learned Single Judge in O.P.No.8603/2008. 2. While disposing of the original petition, the learned Single Judge has directed the appellant to take a decision on the ratio to be applied between the employment exchange hands and those candidates belonging to the category of dependants of land owners whose lands had been acquired for the purpose of establishment of the Airport. 3. The above direction was issued by the learned Single Judge in the following facts and circumstances. 4. Respondents 1 to 15 in this appeal had filed the original petition praying for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Chairman, Cochin International Airport Society Ltd, Nedumbassery (Respondent No.16) to consider them for appointment to the available W.A.No.710/2004 -2- vacancies of casual labourers at the Airport. The other prayer was for a declaration that “on the basis of the agreement, test, interview and police verification” the writ petitioners alone had got the right for appointment to the above vacancies in preference to any other candidates. 5. The appellant resisted the claim of the writ petitioners contending inter alia that there was no privity of contract between Air India and the land owners with regard to providing employment to the dependants at the Airport. However, it was admitted by the appellant that Ext.P2 notification had been issued inviting applications from the dependants of the erstwhile land owners from whom lands had been acquired for establishment of the Airport. It was also admitted that a selection process had been held pursuant to receipt of applications from some candidates. The specific case of the appellant was that vacancies in the cadre of casual labourers were being filled up from among candidates sponsored by the employment exchange. In this context it was also pointed out that the provisions contained in the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 ( “Act of 1959” for short) made it incumbent on the appellant to make appointments, either causal or permanent, from among those candidates who were sponsored by the employment exchange only. It was also W.A.No.710/2004 -3- pointed out that when services of some of the candidates sponsored by the employment exchange were terminated to accommodate some of the dependants of the land owners, they had approached this Court questioning the legality of the termination. By Ext.P6 judgment dated August 2, 2002 in O.P.No.20668/2002 this Court had directed the appellant to consider the claim of those sponsored candidates in accordance with law. This Court made it further clear that any fresh engagement of casual workers would be subject to the orders passed by the appellant on the said representation. 6. The learned Single Judge, after adverting to the above contentions raised by the appellant and also considering the contentions raised by respondents 1 to 15 took the view that some sort of balance had to be maintained between the two categories of claimants. It was therefore that the learned Judge directed that the appellant should take a final decision on the ratio to be maintained between these two categories or groups. However, while disposing of the original petition, the learned Judge observed that a ratio of 1:1 may be maintained; but, still the appellant was given liberty to take a final decision. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant while taking exception to the above direction issued by the learned Judge reiterates W.A.No.710/2004 -4- that the provisions contained in Act, 1959 make it mandatory that any appointment by a public body like the appellant can be made only from candidates sponsored by the employment exchange. It is also contended that the learned Judge was not justified in directing the appellant to give employment to the dependants of land owners who had lost their lands in connection with the acquisition, overlooking the provisions contained in the Act. 8. Per contra, it is contended by learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 15 that the appellant having invited applications from among the eligible dependants of land owners and having also conducted the selection test, it is too late for the appellant to contend for the position that he is not bound to give employment to the selectees.. It is also pointed out that several dependants had in fact been given employment by the appellant at one time or other. According to the learned counsel, the plea that Act of 1959 inhibits or prohibits the appellant from making appointment otherwise than through Employment Exchange is only a ruse to deny employment to the respondents who had been waiting for such a chance all these years. It is also contended by the learned counsel that the appellant had prepared a select list after completing the selection process. But, the said list has been suppressed W.A.No.710/2004 -5- and they are now making appointments according to their whims and fancies. 9. In this context, it has to be noticed that respondents 1 to 15 have not produced any documents before us to show that the appellant had prepared a select list or that anybody from such a list had been appointed. However, we notice that respondent No.1 had in fact been served with some kind of a letter of appointment or communication which is in record as Ext.P4. In the said communication respondent No.1 has been directed to appear before the Administrative office of the appellant at the Airport with four stamp size and two passport size photographs. This, at best, may indicate that the appellant had decided to appoint respondent No.1 as a casual labourer. Therefore, we are of the view that some relief can be granted to respondent No.1 alone. As far as other respondents are concerned, we are afraid no relief can be granted to them 10. Apart from the above, we are not in a position to sustain the direction issued by the learned Single Judge. It is true that the appellant may not be bound by terms of the agreement, if any, entered into between respondent No.16 and the erstwhile land owners. But, it is not in dispute that the appellant had invited applications from W.A.No.710/2004 -6- eligible dependants and conducted a selection process. It is also seen from the records that some of the dependants had been given appointment as casual labourers pursuant to the selection process. But still, the appellant cannot be directed to ignore the mandates contained under Act of 1959. In that view of the matter, the appellant cannot be asked to fix a ratio for giving employment to the respondents. Therefore, the judgment is modified and the directions issued to the appellant to fix a ratio is vacated. However, appellant shall consider the case of the respondent No.1 for appointment by the appellant, if he is otherwise eligible. 11. In view of the order passed in the writ appeal no orders need be passed in I.A.No.1140/2004 and accordingly it is closed. The writ appeal is allowed to the above extent. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE MS W.A.No.710/2004 -7-