IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 13TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 22ND BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 28086 of 2010(I) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.V.STEPHEN, CONTRACTOR, KANIYODICKEL HOUSE, ERUMATHALA P.O, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DIST., PIN-683 112. BY ADV. SRI.B.V.JOY SANKER. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. HINDUSTAN MACHINE TOOLS LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER,HMT COLONY P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN-683 503. 2. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (HR),HMT LTD, HMT COLONY P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN-683 503. 3. MANAGER, FOUNDARY DIVISION, HMT LTD, HMT COLONY P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN-683 503. 4. P.V.SAJEEV, CONTRACTOR, PARAMBATHUKUDI, NAYATHODU P.O, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM,PIN-683 592. R1 TO R3 BY SRI. SAJI VARGHESE, S.C, H.M.T. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/09/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 28086 of 2010 I ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 13th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T According to the petitioner, he is a Contractor engaged to respondents 1 and 2 for certain skilled works. It is stated that due to the strike of the company employees, the petitioner's workers were idling and that they have all gone on leave. On account of the above, when the company asked him to provide workmen, he could not comply with the requirements. It is stated that taking coverage of the said inability, respondents 1 to 3 are now engaging the fourth respondent who is not a contractor of the company. It is aggrieved by this, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition. 2. Standing Counsel for the respondent submitted that on account of the failure of the petitioner to provide the required workmen, the works in the company were affected and that as a result of it, the company had made a temporary arrangement by engaging the fourth respondent. 3. According to the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, engagement of the fourth respondent is only a WPC.28086/10 : 2 : temporary arrangement and the contract between the petitioner and the company is still valid and that the petitioner is entitled to resume the work, provided he is able to perform the work he is called upon to do. 4. Irrespective of the above, since the petitioner has taken up his grievances before respondents 1 and 2 by filing Exts.P4 and P5, I direct the second respondent to consider the said representations and pass appropriate orders thereon. This shall be done at any rate within four weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with copy of the writ petition. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks