IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2010 / 30TH POUSHA 1931 WA.No. 2912 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.25984/2007 Dated 26/08/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S): R2,3,4 IN WPC: ---------------------------- 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, MATSYAFED, KAMALESWARAM, MANACAUD P.O., (FORMERLY AT KURAVANKONAM), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695009. 2. THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION FOR FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT LTD. (MATSYAFED) KAMALESWARAM, MANACAUD P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695009. 3. THE PLANT MANAGER, MATSYAFED ICE AND FREEZING PLANT, KOCHI 682 005. BY ADV. SRI.SHYAM KRISHNAN, SC, MATSYAFED RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT 1 IN WP: ------------------------------------------------- 1. D.VARGHESE, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.DEVASSYA, PULIMOOTTIL HOUSE, PARATHODE P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, FISHERIES AND PORTS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI. A.X. VARGHESE THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/01/2010, ALONG WITH WA 2915, 2917, 2918 & 2929 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K. MOHANAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- W.A. Nos. 2912, 2915, 2917, 2918 & 2929 OF 2009 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard standing counsel appearing for the appellant in all the connected Writ Appeals, and counsel appearing for respondents. The judgment under appeal is one whereunder the learned single Judge directed the appellant to give arrears of wages and other benefits pursuant to government order produced as Ext.P4 dated 22.3.2007 regularizing 17 employees in the appellant's organisation. Even though counsel for the appellant contended that contesting respondents were employed on contract basis in the fishing vessels operated by the appellant, those vessels were abandoned years back and there was no occasion to employ them thereafter, it is seen that Government vide Ext.P4 regularized the services of these 17 persons with retrospective effect from 22.4.1996. It is seen from the Government order that certain supernumerary posts were created to accommodate all these 17 2 persons. While the case of the appellant is that these persons have not worked for all the period until their regularization by Government order, counsel appearing for respondents who have already retired from service and counsel appearing for the four persons who are in service submitted that even after the abandonment of the vessels all the contesting respondents were employed on regular basis in various other categories of employment which are the posts referred to in the Government order. If this is the factual position, then we see no reason to deny employment benefits to these persons whose services are regularized vide Ext.P4 irrespective of whether they have already retired or not. In fact in the earlier round of litigation even though the Division Bench did not consider the Writ Appeal on merits, it made an observation that if there is no scope for continuous employment of those temporarily appointed on contract basis, then it would be open to the appellant to take appropriate steps which necessarily means that they could have been retrenched. However, there is nothing to indicate that the appellant has taken any steps in this regard. Even though standing counsel appearing for the appellant produced office order dated 5.6.1998 proposing to employ 15 ;persons in alternate jobs 3 indicating that they were not in employment for the period of three years, we do not know why the Government did not take this into account while giving retrospective regularization, that is from 22.4.1996. In other words, Government acted against the interests of the appellant by granting regularization for employment to these persons who have not worked for three years. In our view, the Government order is binding on the appellant which is nothing but a organsation under the control of the Government, and for this reason, we should dismiss the Writ Appeals. Further, even though the judgment in the Writ Appeal on regularization did not consider the appellant's case on merits, appellant has not filed review or taken any steps to get the judgment of the learned single Judge directing regularization modified. In the circumstances, we do not find no merit in the Writ Appeals and the same are dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (V.K. MOHANAN) Judge. kk 4