IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2009 / 7TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 256 of 2009(E) ------------------------ PETITIONER: -------------- R/PRASANNAN, SECRETARY, VANIJYA VYAVASAYA MASDOOR SANGH, B.M.S. OFFICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.J.MATHEW SRI.PRATHEESH.P RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LABOUR DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, KOLLAM. 3. KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LTD, KOLLAM REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR. 4. M.SALIM, RETIRED JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER, CONSULTANT OF KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LTD., KOLLAM R1 TO R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.SUDHADEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 256 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the Secretary of the registered Trade Union. According to the petitioner, their members are the workers of the Contractors engaged by the 3rd respondent, a company, incorporated under the Companies Act. Petitioner states that the 3rd respondent had decided to enlist the contract workers and that 4th respondent was appointed as a consultant for this purpose. It is stated that the norms for such enlistment is being finalised and that at that stage, company is going to make enlistment, without awaiting for the finalisation of the norms. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent submits that though initially there was a proposal for enlistment of contract workers, however complaints were received from various quarters regarding irregularities committed by Union. It is stated that coming to know of such irregularities, the Company decided to give up the enlistment. W.P.(C) No. 256/2009 2 In view of this submission as above, it can be seen that the petitioners apprehension is misplaced. If there is no proposal for enlistment, there is no question of directing the company to await for finalisation of the norms for enlisting the contract workers. Writ petition is therefore, closed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm