IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 25TH JULY 2011 / 3RD SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 19862 of 2011(G) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- 1. COCHIN CORPORATION THOZHILALI UNION C.I.T.U,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,SKANDAKUMAR, AGED 59 YEARS,S/O.KARUPPAN,PULIYAPPILLI KADAVIL, PUZHUPALEA ROAD,VADUTHALA. 2. COCHIN CORPORATION THOZHILALI CONGRESS I.N.T.U.C.REP.BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY,D.DEVASY, URUMALIPARAMBIL HOUSE,UDAYAHTUMVATHIL, PANANGAD.P.O. 3. COCHIN CORPORATION THOZHILALI KENDRAM (.T.U.C.L)REP.BY ITS SECRETARY C.A.JOSEPH, S/O.ANTHAPAN,CHOOTHAMPARAMBIL,ELAMAKARA. BY ADV. SMT.T.B.MINI RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. COCHIN CORPORATION,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, BOAT JETTY,ERNAKULAM-682016. 2. SACARIA FERNADAS,H.NO.371,MANATHARA ROAD,VELI.P.O,ERNAKULAM-682011. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.RAJU SEBASTIAN VADAKKEKARA,SC,COCHI SRI.P.K. SOYUZ, SC., KOCHI CORPORATION THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 19863/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE ORDER OIF OMBUDSMAN STAYING THE REGULARISATION OF CONTIGENT EMPLOYEES. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.19862 of 2011-G. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 25th July, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioners are Trade Unions working among the contingent employees in the Cochin Corporation. The contention of the petitioners is that as early as in 1982 the Government have issued a direction to regularise all the casual contingent employees working in the Corporation based on seniority. While the process of regularisation was going on from the list that was prepared for the aforesaid purpose, some of the employees who got grievance with respect to their seniority position in the said list challenged the same before this court by filing WP(C).No.6268/2009. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to correct the anomalies exist in the list with notice to the parties likely to be affected, as well. While so, the 2nd respondent, who is not an employee of the 1st respondent, filed a complaint before the Ombudsman for Local Self WP(C).No.19862/2011-G. 2 Government Institutions. The said complaint, which was numbered as O.P.No.30/2010, is now pending before the Ombudsman. Admittedly, the petitioners have entered appearance in the said proceedings. Among other contentions, the petitioners contended that the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions is lacking jurisdiction to consider the issue involved in this case pertaining to the regularisation of casual contingent workers working under the Corporation in terms of the Government Order issued in the year 1982 and also the Government Order No.91/01. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel Sri.Raju Sebastian Vadakkekara for the first respondent. 3. As already noticed herein before, the petitioners have already entered appearance before the Ombudsman and filed their statements in OP.No.30/2010. I am of the considered view that in the said circumstances the petitioners have to raise all their contentions including WP(C).No.19862/2011-G. 3 jurisdictional question before the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions in Complaint No.30/2010. In case the petitioners raised the jurisdictional question in the statement already filed or in case the petitioners raise such a question, the same shall be considered by the Ombudsman and pass appropriate orders thereon, treating it as a preliminary issue. This shall be done expeditiously. Subject to the said observations, this writ petition is disposed of. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, (Judge) Kvs/-