IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY TUESDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 12TH MAGHA 1932 WA.No. 1587 of 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.24083/2010 Dated 02/08/2010 .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS ------------------------- 1. VISWANATHAN NAIR,AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNA PILLAI,OFFICE SENIOR ATTENDER, KERALA CERAMICS LTD.,KUNDARA,RESIDING AT KRISHNAVILASAM,THAZHATHUKULAKKADA,KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM. 2. RAJU,AGED 57 YEARS,S/O.DIVAKARAN, REGISTER KEEPER,CHARGE OF PURCHASE ASSISTANT, KERALA CERAMICS LTD., KUNDARA 691 501,RESIDING AT AMBADI,PATTATHANAM PO, KOLLAM. 3. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI,AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.V.R.K.UNNITHAN,SENIOR ASSISTANT,KERALA CERAMICS LTD., KUNDARA RESIDING AT AISWARYAN, KAKKAKOTTOOR,AMPALATHUKALA PO,EZHUKONE,KOLLAM. 4. BHUVANENDRAN PILLAI,AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.BALAN PILLAI,OFFICE ASSISTANT KERALA CERAMICS LTD., KUNDARA,RESIDING AT THODATHIL VEEDU, PERUMONPUZHA PO,KUNDARA,KOLLAM. 5. SINDHU,AGED 32 YEARS,D/O.SHANMUGHAM, OFFICE ATTENDER,KERALA CERAMICS LTD.,KUNDARA RESIDING AT PANAYIL PUTHEN VEEDU,KARIKKODU, T.K.M.C.P.O,KOLLAM. 6. PREMALATHA,AGED 48 YEARS, D/O.BAHULEYAN,GRADE I STENO KERALA CERAMICS LTD., KUNDARA RESIDING AT PRANAVAM T.C.30/1912(2) BHAGATH SINGH ROAD,PETTA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. SIVADASAN,AGED 50 YEARS,S/O.KUNJU PILLAI U.D.TYPIST KERALA CERAMICS LTD., KUNDARA RESIDING AT PULIMOOTTIL VEEDU, KANJIRAMCODE, KUNDARA , KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO INDUSTRY,INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE KERALA CERAMICS LTD., KUNDARA, KOLLAM, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR-691 501. G.P. SRI.BENNY GERVACIS FOR R1 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. .................................................................... Writ Appeal No.1587 of 2010 .................................................................... Dated this the 1st day of February, 2011. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Even though appellant has challenged the difference in rate of Dearness Allowance maintained between the managerial staff and the working class on ground of discrimination, counsel for the appellants submitted that it is enough Government consider their case atleast for increase in wages. We, therefore, dispose of the Writ Appeal directing the Government to consider appellant's claim for increase in D.A. or wage increase as such, which will be considered based on norms followed in public sector industries under Government's control. Since the Company is a Government Company, it is for the Managing Director to get decision by the Government in the matter and to implement the same in the Company. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge BHABANI PRASAD RAY Judge pms