IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2008 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 17189 of 2007(U) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------------ 1. K.SIVANKUTTY, SKILLED WORKER, WANTEX PROCESS HOUSE, PAPPANAMCODE, TRIVANDRUM. 2. S.MOHAMMED BASHEER, SKILLED WORKER. BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHANDAS RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. DIRECTOR OF HANDLOOMS & TEXTILES, VIKAS BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM. 2. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE HANDLOOMS WEAVERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., TRIVANDRUM-1. 3. GENERAL MANAGER, HANTEX WEAVERS PROCESS HOUSE, PAPPANAMCODE, TRIVANDRUM. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHANDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.17189/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.A3/PR/98 DT. 20.7.2000 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE MEMO DT. 15.12.1995 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 24.11.05 IN WPC. NO.24362/05. EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 18.12.06 IN WA. NO.2372/06. EXT.P6:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 30.12.06 SUBMITTED BY IST PETITIONER. EXT.P7:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DT. 21.12.06 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P8:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DT. 22.3.07 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P9:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DT. 11.4.07 ISSUED BY R3. EXT.P10:- COPY OF THE PAY FIXATION ISSUED BY R3 IN FAVOUR OF IST PETITIONER. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE tss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.17189 of 2007-U = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2008. JUDGMENT 1.This writ petition is by two skilled workers of HANTEX, who are stated on the verge of their retirements. According to them, they are entitled to the benefit of certain pay revisions. They rely on some other judgments issued by this Court which are referable to some employees who are stated to be similarly situated persons. The learned counsel for the HANTEX, however, points out that during the pendency of those matters, some of the directions issued by this Court were re-considered in R.P.202/2004 and on 17-10-2005, this Court had recalled an earlier judgment and held that the implementation of the materials on the basis of which the petitioners claim benefit of the pay revision orders would not be enforced because, the matter was to be considered by the WP(C)17189/2007 -: 2 :- Director of Handlooms and Textiles, having regard to the financial situation of HANTEX. 2.The order on the review petition referred to above was issued in October, 2005. Ext.P4 judgment of this Court has been issued in November, 2005 issuing certain directions in relation to another employee. The situation in hand shows that there is not even any consistency in the matter of considering the applicability of the benefit of the pay revision orders. This is, obviously, because, the question of the availability and applicability of the pay revision benefits has not been considered by the Director of Handlooms, though it would not be either in the managerial wisdom or in the interest of the employees of HANTEX to drag on that issue indefinitely. Under the aforesaid circumstances, while preserving all the contentions of the petitioners and their right to sue before the appropriate WP(C)17189/2007 -: 3 :- forum, this writ petition is ordered directing that the first respondent will take up the case relating to the benefits available to the petitioners by implementing the pay revision orders and take a final decision thereon, without fail, within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioners, if so advised and if they seek for, will be given an opportunity of hearing by the first respondent in the above regard. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/050608