IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K.DENESAN FRIDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2006 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1928 WP(C).No. 31631 of 2006(N) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------------- 1. P.LAKSHMANAN, AGED 59 YEARS, (RETIRED CHARGE & GRADE CIVIL), S/O.NARAYANA PILLAI, MANOVIHAR, THIRUVANKULAM. 2. T.NARAYANAN (RETIRED CHARGE & GRADE CIVIL), SREEBHAVAN, MAMALA P.O., MURIYAMANGALAM. 3. K.P.RAJAN, AGED 59 YEARS, (RETIRED CHARGE & GRADE CIVIL), S/O.PARAMESWARAN, KALARICKAL HOUSE, PANAMBUKADU, VALLARPADAM P.O. 4. GEORGE JOSEPH, AGED 58 YEARS, (RETIRED CHARGEMAN GRADE) S/O.THOMMAN JOSEPH, PADINJAREKATTIL HOUSE, THIRUVANKULAM P.O. BY ADV. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. KERALA ELECTRICAL AND ALLIED ENGINEERING CO.LTD., (KEL IN SHORT), REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, 7TH FLOOR, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-36. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES (D) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN, SC, KEL SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN R2 & 3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/12/2006, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.K.DENESAN, J. ========================= WP(C).No.31631 OF 2006-N. ========================= Dated this the 15th day of December, 2006. J U D G M E N T The petitioners in this case are retired employees of the 1st respondent-Company. They are denied the pay revision benefits arising out of the settlement with effect from 1-10-1999, owing to the rider that the benefits could be given only if the company makes a profit for the consecutive period of two years. But in the case of officers, the benefits were granted without any such stipulation. 2. The 1st respondent has filed counter-affidavit explaining the circumstances which stood in the way of the respondents to make immediate payment of the amount under Ext.P1 settlement. According to the 1st respondent the individual members of the Trade Unions which were parties to the settlement cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction or enforce the directions of the settlement and that the settlement itself says that the benefits arising out of the provisions in the settlement will be subject to the approval of the Government. WP(C).No.31631/2006. 2 3. An identical issue was considered by this Court leading to judgment dated 9-7-2001 in O.P.No.23729/1998. That was a case where the members of the managerial staff were denied the benefit given to the workers. It was held therein that the conduct is unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminatory. In the instant case what is paid to the managerial staff is not paid to the workers. It needs no elaborate consideration to hold that the attitude is certainly discriminatory. It would even amount to hostile discrimination since the beneficial class is the upper class. 4. A Division Bench of this Court has affirmed the findings by a learned Single Judge that the retired employees shall not be compelled to wait for indefinite periods to receive their terminal benefits on the ground that the industry is in financial difficulties. It has been held that beyond a reasonable period, the employer has no right to withhold or fail to pay the terminal benefits. In that view also the petitioners are entitled to seek a direction to the respondents that the benefits arising out of a settlement shall be made available to them. The contention that the individual members cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction since settlement arrived at was with the WP(C).No.31631/2006. 3 trade unions is not tenable. Each and every retired employee is entitled to approach this Court, because, he is a person aggrieved and has locus standi to maintain this petition under Article 266 of the Constitution of India. 5. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to disburse the benefits arising out of Ext.P1 settlement within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment, ignoring the impugned government order. The writ petition is disposed of as above. K.K.DENESAN, JUDGE. kvs/-