IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 2ND ASWINA 1931 OP.No. 502 of 2001(I) --------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. B.SANALKUMAR, WATCHMAN, KSEW LTD., CHAKKAI, TRIVANDRUM, RESIDING AT KANDAMATH HOUSE, NEAR HOMOEO COLLEGE, NEMAM P.O., TRIVANDRUM. 2. S.S.UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR, WATCHMAN, KSEW LTD., CHAKKAI, TRIVANDRUM, RESIDING AT CHIRATHALAKKAL PUTHENVEEDU, KARAKULAM P.O., TRIVANDRUM. 3. S.SREEKUMAR, WATCHMAN, KSEW LTD., CHAKKAI, RESIDING AT HARI BHAVAN, KARAKULAM TRIVANDRUM. 4. F.SAJU, WATCHMAN, KSEW LTD., CHAKKAI, TRIVANDRUM, RESIDING AT SARADA NILAYAM, VENGANOOR P.O., TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVT., PUBLIC WORKS DEPT., SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (ADMN), PWD, TRIVANDRUM. 3. ASST. ENGINEER, PWD BUILDINGS, VALLAYAMBALAM SECTION, TRIVANDRUM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.N.SUDHADEVI, FOR R1,2,3 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.9.09 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.No. 502/2001. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.No. 24040/2000 OF THIS COURT. Sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No. 502 of 2001 ================== Dated this the 24th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioners were temporary watchmen engaged by the Kerala State Engineering Workshop (KSEW), which was under the Public Works Department. They claim to have been engaged on daily wages on 25.4.1995. Since their representation seeking regularisation of their service was not considered, the petitioners approached this Court and obtained Ext.P1 judgment in O.P.No.24040/2000, wherein, this Court directed the Government to consider the representation filed by them and not to terminate their services till orders are passed on the same. The petitioners' averment in this original petition is that from January, 2000 onwards salaries/wages due to the petitioners are not being disbursed. The petitioners, therefore, filed this original petition seeking the following reliefs: “i) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to draw and disburse the wages/salary due to the petitioners from January 2000 onwards towards the work done by them; and ii) Issue such other and further reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. A counter affidavit has been filed, wherein it has been stated that although the petitioners were engaged as temporary watchmen from 24.4.1994 onwards, there was no occasion to continue their engagement beyond 21.8.2000, since, according to the O.P.502/01 2 respondents, the land and proprieties of KSEW Ltd. at Chackai, where the petitioners were engaged, were handed over to the Indian Air Force on 21.8.2000 and thereafter, PWD had no occasion to do anything in the premises. Consequently, after 21.8.2000 it was not necessary to engage any watchmen in the premises. According to them, salary upto 21.8.2000 had already been paid to the petitioners. It is further submitted that as directed in Ext.P1 judgment the claim of the petitioners has been considered and, by Ext.R1 order dated 18.1.2001, their claim for regularisation was declined. Therefore, according to the respondents, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief in this original petition. 3. The petitioners have not chosen to file any reply affidavit although counter affidavit was filed as early as on 16.5.2005. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. It is true that in Ext.P1 judgment this Court had directed that the services of the petitioners shall not be terminated till Ext.P4 in that original petition is disposed of. That representation was disposed of by Ext.R1 letter dated 18.1.2001. Even though in Ext.P1 judgment it has been directed that the services of the petitioners shall not be terminated till orders are passed as directed in Ext.P1 judgment and orders have been passed only on 18.1.2001, I cannot direct the respondents to pay wages to the petitioners beyond 21.8.2000, in so O.P.502/01 3 far as the petitioners could not have been employed as watchmen in the establishment beyond 21.8.2000, till which date only, the premises in question were in the hands of the PWD, after which date, the premises were handed over to the Indian Air Force. The petitioners cannot claim wages for period during which they were not required to do any work at all especially since they were employed temporarily on daily wages. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this original petition and, accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No. 502 of 2001-I ================== J U D G M E N T 24th September, 2009