IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2011 / 7TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 28750 of 2007(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE COIR CORPORATION EMPLOYEES CONGRESS, R. SHANKAR MEMORIAL CONGRESS BHAVAN, ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, A.G. HARICHANDRAN. 2. K.L. JOHNKUTTY, KAKKARIYIL, KATOOR P.O., KALAVOOR, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE COIR CORPORATION, FACTORY WARD, ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES (COIR) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.M.MANOJ ADV. SRI.K.N.BALACHANDRAN KARTHA,SC,COIRCRFT FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No. 28750/07 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DATED 27.2.2002 EXT.P2 : COPY OF LETTER DATED 21.7.2004 ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P3 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 22.2.2006 EXT.P4 : COPY OF ORDER DATED 28.9.2006 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE vps P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 28750 OF 2007 -------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T The first petitioner is a trade union representing workers of the Kerala State Coir Corporation, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’ for short). The second petitioner is a member of the first petitioner trade union and a Security Guard working in the establishment of the Corporation. The services of 8 Security Guards including the second petitioner and one Security Supervisor engaged by the first respondent in its factory at Alappuzha were terminated in the year 1987. That led to a dispute which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Alappuzha for adjudication. By award passed on 5.2.1990 the Industrial Tribunal directed reinstatement of the said workers in service with back wages. The first respondent thereupon filed O.P. No.2625 of 2000 in this Court. While the said writ petition was pending, the workmen and the management came to a settlement. A true copy thereof is produced as Ext.P1. It was agreed by and between the parties that the workers will not claim past wages, that the Security Supervisor will be paid consolidated sum of Rs.1,560/- per mensem and the 8 Security Guards will be paid the sum of Rs.1,430/- per mensem. It WPC No.28750/07 2 was also agreed by and between the parties that the workers will cease to be in service as and when regular hands are appointed by the Kerala Public Service Commission. Consequently O.P. No.2625 of 2000 was closed as settled out of court by judgment delivered on 14.3.2006. 2. Thereafter the management enhanced the consolidated pay of Security Supervisor to Rs.2,500/- and that of Security Guards to Rs.2,000/- per mensem. Still later, the Board of Directors of the Corporation decided to place the Security Supervisor in the scale of pay of Lower Division Clerk and the Security Guards in the scale of pay of Watcher. The Managing Director of the Corporation thereafter sent Ext.P2 letter dated 21.7.2004 to the Secretary to Government, Industries Department requesting for sanction to place the 9 employees in the scales of pay referred to above. The Government was also informed that the total financial commitment per month would be Rs.18,569/- and that the expenditure in that regard can be met by the Corporation's own funds. When the request in Ext.P2 was kept pending indefinitely the nine employees submitted Ext.P3 representation dated 22.2.2006 before the Additional Secretary to Government, Industries Department requesting for Government WPC No.28750/07 3 sanction for placing them in a scale of pay. They thereafter filed W.P.(C) No.23163 of 2006 in this Court. By judgment delivered on 29.8.2006 this Court directed the Government to consider Exts.P2 and P3 and pass orders thereon. By Ext.P4 letter dated 28.9.2006 the Government informed the Managing Director of the Corporation that as the continuance of the personnel is subject to regular hands joining duty, it is not possible to regularize the security staff by giving them scales of pay. Ext.P4 is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. The main contention raised by the petitioners is that the Government's permission was not sought to regularise the petitioners in service, that regularisation was effected by Ext.P1 settlement and that the only request made to the Government in Ext.P3 was for permission to place the 9 employees in the scales of pay referred to above. It is also contended that no financial burden will be cast on the Government by placing the workers in a scale of pay and that the expenditure in that regard can be met from the corporation's own funds. The petitioners contend that the Government misdirected itself when it rejected the request in Ext.P3. 4. The respondents have been served and they have entered appearance. Though more than three years have passed thereafter, WPC No.28750/07 4 till date, the respondents have not filed a counter affidavit denying or disputing the averments in the writ petition. It is evident from a reading of Ext.P1 settlement that it was entered into pursuant to the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Alappuzha which had directed reinstatement of the 9 workers in service. As per the terms of Ext.P1 settlement, the 9 workers named in paragraph 3 thereof namely one Security Supervisor and 8 Security Guards are regular employees of the Corporation. However they agreed that as and when regular hands are appointed by the Kerala Public Service Commission they will cease to be in service. They were also paid a consolidated pay. Later the consolidated pay was increased to Rs.2,500/- per mensem in case of the Security Supervisor and Rs.2,000/- in case of 8 Security Guards. Still later, the management thought that the Security Supervisor should be placed in the scale of pay of Lower Division Clerk and the Security Guards in the scale of pay of Watcher and requested the Government to sanction the same. The Corporation informed the Government that no financial burden would be cast on the Government by placing the workers in a scale of pay and that the expenditure in that regard can be met from the Corporation's own funds. The Government turned down the request WPC No.28750/07 5 for the reason that placing the employees in a scale of pay is for the purpose of regularization. It is evident from Ext.P4 order that the Government did not take note of the facts in the correct prospective. I am therefore of the considered opinion that the Government should reconsider the matter. I accordingly allow the writ petition, quash Ext.P4 and direct the Government to reconsider the request made by the petitioners in Ext.P3 letter dated 22.2.2006 and pass orders thereon expeditiously and in any event within four months from the date on which the petitioners produce a certified copy of this judgment before the Secretary to Government, Industries Department, after affording the Secretary of the first petitioner trade union and the representative of the management an opportunity of being heard. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps