IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2010 / 26TH JYAISTHA 1932 OP.No. 6792 of 2001(H) ------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. D.K.CHATTERJI, S/O. A.K. DIAKARAN, AGED 46, KAYALCHIRAYIL, NEHRUTROPHY WARD, AVALUKUNNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA. 2. PARAMESWARAN K., S/O. KUTTY, AGED 55, PARAMBIL HOUSE, N.T.WARD, ALAPPUZHA. 3. T.M.ANTONY, S/O. MATHACHAN, AGED 60, THEKKETHALAKKAL, THATHAMPALLY WARD, ALAPPUZHA. 4. T.J. JOSEPH , SON OF JOB, AGED 55, THARAYIL, THATHAMPALLY WARD, AVALUKUNNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA. 5. P.C. JAYAN, S/O. CHELLAPPAN, AGED 41, PURATHECHIRAYIL, NEHRUTROPHY WARD, ALAPPUZHA. 6. V.K. MOHANAN, S/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN, AGED 44, MADATHIL KUPPAPPURAM P.O., PALLATHURUTHY, ALAPPUZHA. 7. P.D.BALAN, S/O. DANAVAN, AGED 43, BALABHAVANAM, PANNAKKAMCHIRA, NEHRUTROPHY WARD, AVALUKUNNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA. 8. T.R.ISWANATHAN, THATTUNKAL HOUSE, AVALUKUNNU,P.O., PUNNAMADA, ALAPPUZHA. 9. K.G.MOHANAN, ASSARIPARAMBIL, PALLATHURUTHY, ALLEPPEY. 10. C.MANOHARAN, KAYALCHIRA, TSS.Y. WARD, ALLEPPEY. BY ADV. SRI. S.SANAL KUMAR OP. NO.6792/2001 RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, ALAPPUZHA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY TO LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2010, THE COURT ON 16/06/2010 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP. NO.11192/2001 , IA. NO.3476/2010 IN OP. NO.6792/2001 DISMISSED 16/06/2010 SD/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE CHEQUE ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER. P2:- COPY OF THE CHEQUE BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. P3:- COPY OF THE CHEQUE ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD PETITIONER AS WAGES FOR THE MONTH NOVEMBER. P4:- COPY OF THE CHEQUE ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH PETITIONER. P5:- COPY OF THE CHEQUE ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH PETITIONER. P6:- COPY OF THE CHEQUE ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE 6TH PETITIONER. P7:- COPY OF THE CHEQUE ISSUED BY THE MUNICIPALITY TO THE 7TH PETITIONER. P8:- COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 8TH PETITIONER. P9:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. P10:- COPY OF THE CHEQUE ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE 9TH PETITIONER. P11:- COPY OF THE CHEQUE ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE 10TH PETITIONER. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P. No. 6792 of 2001-H - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of June, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioners herein have been engaged as Ferrymen by the first respondent Municipality for conducting ferry at different points in Vembanad lake and its tributaries. On the basis of the said engagement, according to the petitioners, they are entitled to be regularised in a permanent cadre. It is pointed out that every month they are being paid wages. The permanent nature of the engagement, according to them, shows that there is necessity for forming a permanent cadre. It is in these circumstances, they have filed this writ petition seeking for various reliefs. 2. The Municipality has filed a statement disputing the claims raised by the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon various decisions of the Apex Court, viz. G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Patnagar, Naintal v. State of U.P. & Others (2000 (5) Supreme 477), International Airport Authority employees Union & another v. International Airports Authority of India & others (2000 (8) Supreme 286) and Union of India & others v. Aslam and others (2001 op 6792/2001 2 (1) Supreme 11), to contend that in different circumstances, the Apex Court has accepted the right for regularisation of similarly placed employees. It is therefore contended that the Municipality cannot bank upon the contractual arrangement to deny the benefit to the petitioners. 4. In G.B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology's case (2000 (5) Supreme 477), the employees of Cafeteria of the University were directed to be regularised in service. A reading of the judgment shows that the said position was accepted by the Apex Court in the light of the regulation framed by the University and after analysing various factors therein. Herein, a similar type of regulation is absent. 5. In International Airport Authority employees Union's case (2000 (8) Supreme 286), Sweepers in parking area in International Airport and National Airport were found entitled to be regularised. The question turned upon the interpretation that the car park is part of the Airport building. Therefore, the situations herein are not similar. 6. In M.Aslam's case (2001 (1) Supreme 11), also the issue was regarding the employees of Unit-Run-Canteens of Armed Forces. Therein also there were a set of rules regulating the terms and conditions of service of the employees of Unit-Run canteens and on an interpretation of the said regulations, the claims were adjudicated. op 6792/2001 3 7. Herein, the situation is totally different, going by the stand taken by the Municipality. It is their case that the Municipality never appointed any person as Ferrymen or has arranged any boat or vessels to maintain the system. Ferry services are being conducted on annual contract basis. It is based on public auction alone. The persons having country boats are entitled to participate in the auction. Therefore, every year, on an annual basis public auctions are being conducted and persons owing country boats and local residents used to execute annual contracts for maintaining ferry service at specific points. The lowest bidder is given the contract also. 8. This arrangement, therefore, shows that it is purely out of an auction that the petitioners got the right to conduct the ferry service on specific terms. Therefore, it is purely contractual in nature. There is no appointment in the sense of the term as known in Service Jurisprudence. There is no employer-employee relationship between the Municipality and the petitioners. Herein, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the payments are effected by cheques, as wages and therefore the employer-employee relationship will be evident from them. Merely because payments are made by cheques, that does not go to show that there is an employee-employer relationship. 9. There is no regular cadre of Ferrymen as far as the establishment op 6792/2001 4 of the Municipality is concerned. Their statutory obligation, if any, to conduct the ferry cannot help the petitioners to get any regularisation in service as required by them. For all these reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/