IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2010 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1932 RP.No. 412 of 2010 --------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.30259/2009 Dated 24/03/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS (2 TO 6): --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE CHAIRMAN, KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION, 3, IRLA ROAD, VILE PARLE WEST, MUMBAI – 400 056. 2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE, KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION, 3, IRLA ROAD, VILE PARLE WEST, MUMBAI – 400 056. 3. DIRECTOR, KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION, 3 IRLA ROAD, VILE PARLE WEST, MUMBAI – 400 056. 4. STATE DIRECTOR, KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION, GRAMODHYA, M.G. ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. 5. PROJECT MANAGER, CENTRAL SILVER PLANT, KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION, KUTTUR, THRISSUR – 680 013. BY ADV. SRI.K.KESAVAN KUTTY,S.C,KVIC. RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 7: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. JOHNY C.A., CHITTILAPPILLY HOUSE, KUTTOOR P.O., THRISSUR-13. 2. P.T.PORINJU, PAYYOKKARAN HOUSE, P.O.MULAMKUNNATHUKAVU, THRISSUR. 3. M.MUKUNDAN, MATHILAKATH HOUSE, CHEROOR P.O., THRISSUR-8. R.P. NO. 412/2010: 4. C.D.GEORGE, NEELANKAVIL CHAKKALAKKAL HOUSE, AYANOOR P.O., THRISSUR. 5. KALESH P., PULIPURATH HOUSE, P.O.KOLAZHI, THRISSUR-10. 6. K.V.MURALI, KOLATTIL HOUSE, KUTTOOR P.O., THRISSUR-13. 7. K.R.ANILKUMAR, KARIYANKATTIL HOUSE, KUTTOOR P.O., THRISSUR - 13. 8. BALAKRISHNAN K.R., KOTTVOLE HOUSE, KOLAZHI P.O., THRISSUR-10. 9. K.NARAYANAN, KODUVELIL HOUSE, P.O.POTTOR, THRISSUR. 10. A.A.KUMARAN, ABAD HOUSE, P.O.KOLAZHI, THRISSUR. 11. P.T.PRASAD, PULLANIPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.KOLAZHI, THRISSUR. 12. RADHAKRISHNAN, PUTHANPURA HOUSE, EDATHARA P.O., PALAKKAD- 678 611. 13. T.R.MOHANDAS, THEKKINIEDATH HOUSE, POTTOR P.O., THRISSUR. 14. P.V.ANEESH, PANDIYATH HOUSE, PERAMANGALAM P.O., THRISSUR. 15. SUMESH, NADUVILPURACKAL HOUSE, KUTTOOR P.O., THRISSUR-13. 16. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY MINISTRY OF MICRO, SMALL & MEDIUM ENTERPRISES, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, GRAMODHAYA BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 17. RO INFOSYS, 3RD FLOOR, CAPITAL TOWER, OPPOSITE SECRETARIAT STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. BY ADVS. MR.P.CHANDRASEKHAR, SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- R.P.No.412 of 2010 in W.P.(C) No.30259 of 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of May, 2010 ORDER The review petitioners have filed this petition seeking to review the portions of the judgment wherein it has been observed that the counsel for the review petitioners had submitted that Exts.P2 and P3 have been dropped for the time being. It is submitted that no such submission was in fact made by the counsel, but what was submitted was that only the proposal in Ext.P6 notification had been dropped. It is also submitted that though the judgment had been dictated in the open court, in the presence of both the counsel, the above mistake was not noticed at that time. It is submitted on behalf of the review petitioners that the policy contained in Exts.P2 and P3 are still being pursued and that it is only Ext.P6 that has been dropped. In the above circumstances, the judgment dated 24.3.2010 is reviewed by substituting paragraphs 3 and 4 with the following paragraphs. “3. The counsel for respondents 2 to 6 submits that the petitioners being temporary R.P.No.412/2010 in WPC No.30259/2009 2 workers are not entitled to claim any of the reliefs claimed in the Writ Petition. The claims of the petitioners are to be agitated in an industrial dispute to be raised by them. It is also submitted that no fresh appointments are proposed to be made as per Exts.P2 and P3. Therefore, the threat of displacement of the petitioner that is voiced in the Writ Petition does not exist at present. In view of the above, it is submitted that the Writ Petition may be dismissed. Though Ext.P6 notification has been issued pursuant to Exts.P2 and P3, it is submitted that the said notification has been dropped for the time being. “4. In view of the fact that Exts.P6 notification has been dropped, the threat of displacement of the petitioners does not exist at present. In view of the above, I do not want to express any opinion on the merits of the rival contentions raised before me.” The review petition is allowed to the above extent. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/