IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 19TH MAGHA 1929 OP.No. 32011 of 2002(J) ----------------------- PETITIONER:- ------------------- K.MADHU, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. LATE KRSHAN PILLAI, KALARIKKAL, PALACE WARD, KALLUMOODU, KAYAMKULAM P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BEPIN VIJAYAN RESPONDENT:- -------------------- THE KERALA MINERALS & METALS LTD., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AND WORKS AT SANKARAMANGALAM, CHAVARA -691583, KOLLAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN SRI.E.K.MADHAVAN SRI.P.V.LOHITHAKSHAN THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- P1: Copy of the identity card issued to the petitioner. P2: Copy of the petitioner's wage slip of January, 2002. P3: Copy of the communication dtd.5.6.1984 issued by the Personnel Manager of the respondent calling the petitioner for the selection process to the post of Sweeper-cum-scavenger. P4: Copy of the certificate issued by Sri.K.V.Koshy, Executive Engineer of the respondent dtd.27.7.1984. P5: Copy of the certificate issued by Sri.late T.K.Chandy, retired Chief Engineer (KSEB) & Civil Engineering Consultant dtd.30.3.1986. P6: Copy of the Communication dtd.24.7.2002 issued by the Joint General Manager of the respondent to the petitioner. P7: Copy of the employer certificate dtd.12.7.2000 issued to the petitioner by the respondent to be produced before LIC Housing Finance Ltd. (Ext.P7 added as per order in IA.No.14727/05 dtd.17.10.2005) RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- R1(a): Copy of the minutes of the 58th meeting of the Board of Directors of the respondent held on 3.1.1983. R1(b): Copy of the G.O.(Rt).No.446/2002/ID dtd.6.6.2002 issued by Industries Department. R1(c): Copy of the minutes of the selection committee held on 30.7.2002 and 31.7.2002. ( true copy ) P.A. TO JUDGE. kvs/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ========================= O.P.No.32011 of 2002-J. ========================= Dated this the 8th day of February, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a casual worker engaged by the respondent which is a Government owned Company. The petitioner is seeking regularisation as permanent worker under the respondent. He is working in Pigment Store Packing Department. According to the petitioner, in spite of numerous requests made by him he is not being regularised but the respondent is making arrangements to take fresh casual workers. Apprehending termination from service he approached this Court by filing this Original Petition. 2. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit. The respondent's case is that normally evictees from the land which was required for the purpose of the Company alone have been granted regularisation. They have prepared a list of such candidates also. It is also averred that as far as the appointment of O.P.No.32011 of 2002-J. 2 persons in the Pigment Unit is concerned, as per resolution dated 3.1.1983 [Ext.R1(a)] qualifications have been ensured also. Standard IV is the minimum educational qualification for appointment of persons evicted from the area. 3. As far as the claim of the petitioner is concerned, it is stated that he has not been included in the select list prepared in the year 1983 for the post of Worker Gr.II. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner cannot assail the regularisation in service of casual workers who were included in the select list prepared by the respondent. It is also stated that the petitioner has studied only upto Standard II whereas the respondent has fixed the minimum educational qualification as Standard IV for the post of Worker Gr.II. 4. I find nothing wrong in the stand taken by the respondent as far as the claim of the petitioner is concerned. Merely because he was being engaged for a long period that is not a ground for him to claim regularisation in service. In the light of the factual position stated already the Original Petition is O.P.No.32011 of 2002-J. 3 dismissed. But this will be without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to claim for regularisation, if a scheme is brought in force allowing regularisation of persons like the petitioner. If the petitioner wishes to raise a dispute before the Labour Court or Tribunal, this Judgment will not be a bar for such an action. No costs. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. kvs/-