IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2009 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 28843 of 2005(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ 1. KUNJIRAMAN,S/O.KRISHNAN,AGED 49 (FIELD SUPERVISOR),MALAMUKKATH HOUSE, P.O.THRIKKAIPPATA,MEPPADI,WYANADU. 2. RAGHAVAN,S/O.POTHAYAN,AGED 47 YEARS (WATCHMAN),VAZHAKANDI VEEDU,THRIKKAPPATTA, MEPPADI,WAYANADU. 3. VELLAN,S/O.SELVAN,AGED 54 YEARS, (WATCHMAN),ERANJIVAYAL,KALPPATTA. 4. VASUDEVAN,S/O.CHINNU,AGED 47 YEARS (PHARMACY ATTENDER),VAZHAKKANDI, THRIKKAIPPATTA,MEPPADI,WAYANADU. 5. SREEDHARAN,S/O.THOLAN,AGED 51 YEARS, (FIELD SUPERVISOR),MUTHARIKUNNU, POZHUTHANA,VAITHIRI. 6. BHASKARAN,S/O.KUNJIRAMAN,AGED 51 YEARS, (FIELD SUPERVISOR),THIRUNELLI HOUSE, MOOLANKAVU,BATHERI. 7. ANANTHAN,S/O.ARAMBA,AGED 48 YEARS, (FIELD SUPERVISOR),MUTHARIKKUNNU VEEDU, POZHUTHANA,VAITHIRI. 8. KESAVAN,S/O.KARIYAN,AGED 56 YEARS, (FIELD SUPERVISOR),AYANIMALA VEEDU, MADAVAYAL,KENICHIRA. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.JACOB RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. POOKKOT GIRIJAN COLLECTIVE FARMING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.2308, POOKKOTT DIARY PROJECT,REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN/ DISTRICT COLLECTOR,COLLECTORATE,WAYANADU. WPC NO.28843/05 -2- 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,POOKKOTT GIRIJAN COLLECTIVE FARMING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.2308,WAYANAD, PROJECT OFFICER,I.T.D.P.,WAYANADU,KALPPATTA. 3. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY GOVERNMENT SECRETARY,SC/ST DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,TRIVANDRUM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/06/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 24082 OF 2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.28843/05 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RETRENCHMENT SCHEDULE ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT DATED 15.6.04. EXT.P2: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT IN WPC 21493/04 DT 5.11.04. EXT.P3: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 21493/04 DT 8.11.04. EXT.P4: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE STATEMENT OF DUES FORWARDED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE DIRECTOR DT 31.12.2004. EXT.P5: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DETAILS OF SALARY PREPARED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY SPECIAL TAHSILDAR DT 17.7.78. EXT.P7: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY SPECIAL TAHSILDAR DT 14.11.78. EXT.P8: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT DT 4.6.05. EXT.P9: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT DT 13.5.05. EXT.P10: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT DT 24.5.05. EXT.P11: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER NO.GO(RT) 999/05 SCSTDD DTD 2.11.2005. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NOs. 28843 OF 2005 & 24082 OF 2007 ===================== Dated this the 15th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The issues raised in the writ petitions are common and I shall be referring to the facts as stated in WP(C) No.24082/07. 2. Petitioners were employees of the Pookkot Girijan Collective Farming Co-operative Society, Pookkot, Wayanadu, a society administered and controlled by the 1st respondent. It would appear from the pleadings that consequent on the abolition of bonded labour system in Kerala, the Government of Kerala had established a tribal collective farm at Pookkot in 1979 to rehabilitate a section of the freeded bonded labour. The Pookkot Tribal Collective Farming Co-operative Society ('society' for short) was also formed for the effective management of the project. 3. Right from the inception, society was incurring losses and finally the General Body Meeting of the society resolved to wind up the society w.e.f. 8/5/2003. Ext.P1 is the scheme formulated by the 1st respondent providing for the benefits that are to be paid to the employees who are retrenched. This interalia provides that retrenchment compensation shall be paid WPC 28843/05 & 24082/07 :2 : for every completed period of service upto May 2003. Complaining that the scheme was not implemented, a writ petition was filed before this Court as WP(C) No.19777/04. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P2 judgment dated 26th of July, 2004 recording the submission of the learned Government Pleader that 50% of the amount due under Ext.P1 has already been paid. Parties are in agreement that such payment was made on 30/6/2004. In Ext.P2 judgment, the submission that further payments will also be made was also recorded. 4. According to the petitioners, during this period, despite the resolution to wind up the society and the partial payment of retrenchment compensation, they continued in service. It is stated that they were also paid salary till December, 2003. As they were continuing in service even beyond December 2003, they represented to the Government for wages for the subsequent period. It is stated that the Government therefore called for a report from the 4th respondent. Ext.P3 is the letter given by the 4th respondent to the Government suggesting inter alia that employees were continuing in service. Even, during this period, balance 50% was remaining unpaid and therefore WP(C) WPC 28843/05 & 24082/07 :3 : No.4490/05 was filed before this Court. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P4 judgment directing that the balance amount shall be paid within 3 months. Petitioners are referring to Ext.P5, which according to the petitioners show the balance amount that was due. 5. It is stated that on account of the non compliance with Ext.P4 judgment, contempt of court case was filed as COC No.693/05 resulting in Ext.P6, where the respondents were directed to see that the petitioners were paid for the actual days they worked. It is stated that accordingly, the 1st respondent passed Ext.P7 and para 9 of which reads as under: Government have examined whole matter in detail and found that the service of the employees of the society stood terminated with effect from 8.5.2003, vide the proceedings read as the sixth paper above and as reported by the District Collector, Wayanadu and Chairman of the Pookkot Girijan Collective Farming Co-operative Society vide the letter read as the tenth paper above, that there were no circumstances for the employees of the society to work beyond 8.5.2003. 6. It is this order which is under challenge and order for payment of salary is also sought for. A reading of para 9 of Ext.P7 gives the impression that the 1st respondent has negatived the petitioners claim for wages beyond 8/5/2003 on the ground that WPC 28843/05 & 24082/07 :4 : the petitioners have not actually worked in the society. Petitioners submit that it was by Ext.P10 dated 13/5/2005, their services were ordered to be terminated w.e.f. 8/5/2003. It is stated that Ext.P10 itself show that the petitioners have served the society subsequent to 8.5.2003. They are also referring to Ext.P4 report and also Ext.P11, a notice issued by the Managing Director of the Society in this behalf. 7. In this writ petition, what the petitioners mainly complain is that although they were paid salary upto December, 2003 despite the fact that their termination was only by Ext.P10, they have not been paid wages till May 2005. 8. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit. According to the respondents, right from the inception, the society was incurring heavy loss, as a result of which, the general body had resolved to wind up the society w.e.f. 8/5/2003. It is stated that this necessitated the formation of Ext.P1 retrenchment scheme and that 50% of the benefits of the scheme were extended to the workers on 30/6/2004 and the balance 50% was paid in June, 2005. It is stated that Ext.P1 contemplated retrenchment of the employees w.e.f. May 2003 and that they WPC 28843/05 & 24082/07 :5 : had no occasion to work in the society thereafter. It is also stated that the District Collector, Wynad who was the Chairman of the Society, had reported to the Government that there were no circumstances for the employees of the society to work beyond 8.5.2003. It is stated that the claim of the petitioners that they were attending office after 8.5.2003 is baseless and that the respondents had issued no such instructions. Counter would also suggest that the Managing Director and the then Secretary of the Society are hand in glove with the petitioner to sustain this unjustified claim. 9. Similar is the claim raised by the petitioners in WP(C) No.28843/05, who were also employees of the society itself. 10. The controversy in these writ petitions can therefore be seen to be for wages for the period subsequent to December 2003 till May 2005. Admittedly, the employees are retrenched workmen of the society. The scheme for retrenchment formulated by the Government is Ext.P1. The scheme contemplates payment of retrenched compensation taking wages in May 2003 and quantification of the benefits on that basis. Although Ext.P1 is dated 15/6/2004, the amount due to the workmen were quantified WPC 28843/05 & 24082/07 :6 : and 50% thereof was paid on 30/6/2004 and the balance 50% in 3/6/2005. These averments were accepted and there is no challenge to the provisions of Ext.P1 scheme. Two things are to be noticed here. One is that Ext.P1 contemplated reckonable service only till May 2003 and consequently at least technically retrenchment came into force from May, 2003. Once the factum of retrenchment is accepted from May, 2003, there cannot be a claim for employment thereafter unless the person retrenched is reemployed. There is no such case here. If that be so, the entitlement of the petitioners and the other employees of the society will have to be governed by the terms of Ext.P1 and is only upto May 2003. 11. The benefits of Ext.P1 have been paid, though in two instalments. If that be so, the employees in question who were retrenched as per Ext.P1 scheme, having been paid the amount due under Ext.P1, cannot claim anything more than what they have been paid and accepted without protest. 12. True, by Ext.P10 dated 13/5/2005, their services were terminated w.e.f. 8/5/2003. On this basis, learned counsel for the petitioners contend that for the period upto 13/5/2005, they are WPC 28843/05 & 24082/07 :7 : entitled to be paid wages. In my view, an employee who accepts the factum of retrenchment on the basis of Ext.P1 scheme cannot claim that the employer employee relationship continued thereafter and therefore, even if Ext.P10 was not issued, the situation would not have been different. The fact that Ext.P10 was issued will not in any manner improve the case of the petitioners for wages beyond the period , May 2003. I am not persuaded to grant any relief. Writ petitions fail and are dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp