IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2009 / 1ST MAGHA 1930 WA.No. 2355 of 2006(A) ---------------------- ( AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.23000/2000 Dated 20/06/2005) APPELLANTS/ 3RD PARTIES: -------------------------------- 1. E. MOHAMMED YACOB SAIT, ASSISTANT MANAGER (MARKETING) KERALA AGRO MACHINERY CORPORATION LTD., ATHANI P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 585. 2. K.S. SNEHAPRABHA DEVI, ASST.MANAGER (ACCOUNTS), KERALA AGRO MACHINERY CORPORATION LTD., ATHANI P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 585. 3. V.V. MURALI, ASST.MANAGER (PURCHASE) KERALA AGRO MACHINERY CORPORATION LTD., ATHANI P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 585. 4. N.D. PRADEEP, ASST.MANAGER (PURCHASE) KERALA AGRO MACHINERY CORPORATION LTD., ATHANI P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 585. 5. AGRO ENGINEER'S ASSOCIATION, REP. BY ITS VICE-PRESIDENT, R. RAJAN, KERALA AGRO MACHINERY CORPORATION LTD., ATHANI P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 585. BY ADV. SMT.S.KARTHIKA SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.M.R.ANISON SRI.T.R.RAJESH SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI SMT.T.B.REMANI WA.No. 2355 of 2006(A) RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS & PETITIONERS: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT., GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA AGRO MACHINERY CORPORATION LTD., (A GOVT. OF KERALA UNDERTAKING), REGISTERED OFFICE, ATHANI-683 585, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA STATE, REP. BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. K.A. VIJAYARAGHAVAN, MANAGER (MATERIALS), KERALA AGRO MACHINERY CORPORATION LTD., KANJIKODE P.O., PALAKKAD, KERALA-678 621, (NOW WORKING AS SENIOR MANAGER, KAMCO, PALAKKAD). 4. S. SATHEESHKUMAR, DEPUTY MANAGER (STORES) KAMCO, PALAKKAD, (NOW WORKING AS MANAGER, KERALA AGRO MACHINERY CORPORATION LTD., KANJIKOE P.O., PALAKKAD-678 621). 5. N. RAJEEV, ASST. MANAGER (ASSEMBLY), KAMCO, PALAKKAD, (NOW WORKING AS REGIONAL MANAGER (KAMCO), C/O.WEST BENGAL AGRO INDUSTRSIES CORPORATION LTD., 14-NEW TARATALA ROAD, KOLKATA-700 088. 6. V.S. RAJEEV, ASST.MANAGER, (PURCHASE), KAMCO, PALAKKAD, (NOW WORKING AS ASST.MANAGER, (MATERIALS), KAMCO, ATHANI P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN-683 585. 7. P. SATHEESH, ASST.MANAGESR (ACCOUNTS), KAMCO, KANJIKODE P.O., PALAKKAD, KERALA-676 621. 8. V. VIMAL KUMAR, ASST.MANAGER (ADMINISTRATION), KAMCO, PALAKKAD. WA.No. 2355 of 2006(A) 9. JOHNSON. M. KURIAKOSE, ASST.ENGINEER, (PUCHASE), KAMCO, KANJIKODE P.O., PALAKKAD, KERALA-678 621. 10. M.C. VIJAYAKUMAR, SUPERINTENDENT (ADMINISTRATION) KAMCO, PALAKKAD, (NOW WORKING AS ASSISTANT MANAGER, ADMINISTRATION, KAMCO LTD., NEYTHAKUDY, MALA, PIN-680 732. 11. P. PRAMOD, SUPERINTENDENT (ACCOUNTS) KAMCO, PALAKKAD, (NOW WORKING AS SUPERINTENDENT, ACCOUNTS, KAMCO LTD., NEYTHAKUDY, MALA, PIN-680 732. 12. V. HARIDAS. P.A., KAMCO, KANJIKODE P.O., PALAKKAD, KERALA-678 621. 13. M. RAJAN, ASST.ENGINEER (Q.A) KAMCO, KANJIKODE P.O., PALAKKAD, KERALA-678 621. 14. I.M. FAUD, DEPUTY MANAGER, KAMCO, PALAKKAD. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. SHRI BENNY GERVASIS \ BY ADV. SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE (SR.) R2 BY ADV. SHRI JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR R3,4,7,8, 12 AND 13 BY ADV. SRI.K.R.B. KAIMAL (SR.) AND BY ADV. SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. ........................................................................ W.A.No. 2355 OF 2006 ......................................................................... Dated this the 21st January, 2009 J U D G M E N T Kurian Joseph, J. : This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the judgment in O.P.No. 23000 of 2000. The appellants herein were not parties to the said Original Petition. The said Original Petition was filed by the employees of Palakkad unit of the Kerala Agro Machinery Corporation Ltd., challenging Ext. P5 communication of the company. Ext. P5 pertains to the age of retirement and other service benefits of the unit at Palakkad. The Kerala Agro Machinery Corporation Ltd. has four units. The original unit at Athani started in the year 1973 and the three other units, viz., at Kalamassery, Palakkad and Mala started thereafter. As far as the employees of Athani unit, the said unit was treated as an independent unit for the purpose of service conditions. The units at Kalamassery, Palakkad and Mala were treated as one unit with a different set of service conditions. 2. During the pendency of the Original Petition, the W.A.No. 2355 OF 2006 2 retirement age of the employees of the unit at Athani was also prospectively fixed as 58 from the year 2002. In the impugned judgment, the learned single Judge has held that the employees of the units at Kalamassery, Palakkad and Mala are governed by their own service conditions, as seen from the orders of appointment and that their challenge on discrimination was without any basis. However, it was noted that the employees of Athani unit were being considered for various promotional avenues in the units at Kalamassery, Palakkad and Mala. Hence it was observed that it should be reciprocated in the sense that the employees of those units should also be considered for promotions available at the Athani unit. 3. Learned Senior Counsel, Adv. Smt. Seemanthini submits that though the employees of Athani Unit are the affected parties, none of them was impleaded in the Writ Petition. It is further submitted that though the unit at Athani is being treated distinctively for service conditions, the benefits available to them have been taken away by the employees of the other three units by the operation of the impugned judgment. W.A.No. 2355 OF 2006 3 4. Shri K.R.B. Kaimal, learned senior counsel appearing for the party respondents/writ petitioners submits that there is no basis for the contention raised by the appellants, as far as promotions are concerned. What is stated in the impugned judgment is that in case the employees of the unit at Athani are considered for promotions in the vacancies available in the units at Kalamassery, Palakkad and Mala, necessarily the employees in those units should also be considered for promotions in the vacancies available in the unit at Athani and that alone is stated in the judgment, it is submitted. 4. We do not think that we should refer to the various other contentions since the only point pressed before us by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants is that the unit at Athani should be treated separately for the purpose of promotion since pursuant to the judgment under appeal, this principle has been upset. We do not find that the learned single Judge has laid down any contra principle or having issued any direction. The learned single Judge has only observed in the judgment that in case the employees of the unit at Athani are considered W.A.No. 2355 OF 2006 4 for promotion in respect of the vacancies in the three other units the employees in those units should also be considered for promotion in the vacancies available in the unit at Athani. There is no observation or direction for any integration. In case, the company has understood it as otherwise, it is for the appellants to pursue such grievances, if any, in appropriate proceedings. We make it clear that in case any promotions in the unit at Athani was held up based on the judgment of the learned single Judge, since the scope of the judgment has been clarified in our judgment, the company shall do the needful without further delay. Pending interlocutory applications in this Writ Appeal are also disposed of. KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk