IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2009 / 3RD MAGHA 1930 RP.No. 199 of 2007(J) ------------------------------ (AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).23617/2006 DTD. 13/11/2006) .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/ RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2: -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. REGIONAL OFFICE OF THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE CONSUMER FEDERATION, TRIVENI BUILDING, MUTHALAKULAM, KOZHIKODE, REP.BY ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR. 2. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE CONSUMER FEDERATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADV. MR.M.SASINDRAN. RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONERS 1 TO 5 AND 3RD RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. LATHEESH C.P., CHANDRABEETH PULLOLI HOUSE, CHALA P.O., KANNUR. 2. AJAYAKUMAR K.V., KULATHUVAYAL HOUSE, NADUVANED P.O., KANNUR. 3. SATHI.M., KAYYIL HOUSE, VADAKAM, KOZHIKODE. 4. GOPALAN. A., VAZHAYIL MEETHAL HOUSE, MUCHUKUNNU, QUILANDI, KOZHIKODE. 5. KACHANAVALLY T.P., ARAYANGODE, PARACHARITHAZHAM, KOZHIKODE. 6. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, R1 TO R5 BY ADV. MR.P.P.JACOB. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/01/2009, ALONG WITH C.O.(C). NO.115 OF 2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.199/2007 in WP(C).23617/2006-J = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2009. O R D E R 1.This review petition is filed by respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition fundamentally challenging the direction in paragraph 11 of the judgment sought to be reviewed that the writ petitioners shall be allowed to work as casual/temporary employees in the establishment till casual/temporary employees are inducted, as directed by the Division Bench, from or through the employment exchange. The plea is that the petitioners were dis-engaged and were not casual or temporary employees in the establishment. 2.The directions of the Division Bench require that casual and temporary employees could be inducted only through the employment exchange. The status that could be obtained in terms of paragraph 11 RP199/2007 -: 2 :- is only an engagement on an ad hoc basis pending recruitment of any casual/temporary employees through the employment exchange as directed by the Division Bench. Though the plea of the review petitioners is that the writ petitioners were disengaged and there was no question of the petitioners being permitted to continue to work, the Division Bench directions hold the field. As of now, casual/temporary employees are taken only through employment exchanges following those directions. Therefore, if the writ petitioners were not being engaged, they would not get any right to continue. Not only that, at this point of time, when the review petitioners are guided by the Division Bench directions, it would be impossible to issue any direction that the writ petitioners be employed. For the aforesaid reasons, it is clarified that the direction in paragraph 11 of the judgment sought to be reviewed would only operate if the writ petitioners were actually being engaged on RP199/2007 -: 3 :- the date of that judgment and not otherwise. The review petition is ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/060209