IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2009 / 7TH SRAVANA 1931 OP.No. 26200 of 2002(R) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- TOMY THOMAS, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O. V.T.THOMAS, VELIYATHU HOUSE, KORATTY-680 308 THRISSUR DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.H.B.SHENOY SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF LABOUR, SHRAM SAKTHI BHAVAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI 110 001 2. LORD KRISHNA BANK LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ADNINISTRATIVE OFFICE, INDIAN EXPRESS BUILDINGS, KALOOR, KOCHI-682 017 ADV. SRI.M.RAJENDRA KUMAR, ADDL.CGSC FOR R1 SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI.SAJI VARGHESE FOR R2 SRI. AJITH KRISHNAN, ADDL.CGSC FOR R1 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP NO.44500/2002 IN O.P. NO.26200/2002 DISMISSED: 29.7.2009 SD/-(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT.16.1.2002 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO ASST. LABOUR COMMISSIONER(C), ERNAKULAM. P2: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT.25.2.2002 SUBMITTED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO ASST. LABOUR COMMISSIONER(C), ERNAKULAM. P3: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT.8.3.2002 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO ASST. LABOUR COMMISSIONER(C), ERNAKULAM. P4: TRUE COPY OF FAILURE OF CONCILIATION REPORT DT.1.4.2002 SENT BY ASST. LABOUR COMMISSIONER(C), ERNAKULAM TO R1. P5: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT.18.7.2002 ISSUED BY R1. P6: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.22.4.1996 ISSUED BY R1. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... O.P. No.26200 of 2002 .................................................................... Dated this the 29th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging order issued by the Government declining to refer the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner. Petitioner was employed in the second respondent-Bank for a short term in a leave vacancy for less than 240 days. Counsel for the second respondent submitted that when the regular employee who took leave returned, petitioner was released and the regular employee was allowed to join duty in the post left by him during leave. Since the petitioner was appointed only in a leave vacancy on a temporary basis, petitioner has no right for regularisation in service. Therefore, Government rightly declined to refer the industrial dispute for decision by the Industrial Tribunal. The O.P. is therefore, dismissed as devoid of any merit. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms