IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2010 / 7TH MAGHA 1931 WA.No. 138 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.28877/2009 Dated 16/12/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ LISTER SANTHAM, AGED 30, S/O SYRUS SANTHAM , SANTHLAYAM, VIRALI, KANJIRAMKULAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY. KANJIRAMKULAM PANCHAYATH KANJIRAMKULAM. 2. AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, KANJIRAMKULAM. 3. A. YESUDAS, CONBENER, AGRICULTURE BOREWELL PROJECT, CHANI, KANJIRAMKULAM P.O., PIN - 695524 4. WATSON SANTHAM, S.W.BHAVAN, CHAMI, KANJIRAMKULAM P.O. ADV.SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHEER FOR R1 G.P.SMT.SMITHA SUKUMARAN FOR R2 ADV.SRI.R.MANOJ FOR R3. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------- W.A.No.138 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated 27th January, 2010 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant is the writ petitioner. He was a Pump Operator in a Drinking Water Scheme in Kanjiramkulam Panchayat. Presently the scheme is managed by a beneficiary committee. The appellant has entered into an agreement with the Convenor of the committee concerning his engagement. A copy of that agreement is Ext.P3. He claimed that he was in service up to October, 2009. Thereafter, he was denied employment and the beneficiary committee, which presently manages the scheme, has issued Ext.P4 notification inviting applications for appointment of a Pump Operator on 4.10.2009. Challenging Ext.P4 and seeking consequential reliefs, the writ petition was filed. The first respondent Panchayat filed a counter affidavit stating that the appellant is not a person employed by the Panchayat. There is no sanctioned post of Pump Operator, for the Panchayat to make appointment. The appellant has been engaged only by the beneficiary committee. The Panchayat also asserted that it was the beneficiary committee who selected the appellant. The appellant filed a reply affidavit and along with it some materials have W.A.No.138/2010 2 been produced to show that the Panchayat has approved the appointment of the appellant. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, took the view that no material is available on record to come to the conclusion that the Panhayat appointed the petitioner. According to the learned Judge, the beneficiary committee has appointed him and the said committee has terminated him from service. The same cannot be subjected to judicial review. In that view of the matter, the writ petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said judgment, this appeal is preferred. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned counsel reiterated the contentions which were unsuccessfully canvassed before the learned Single Judge. We agree with the learned Judge that there is no material on record to come to the conclusion that the Panchayat has appointed the appellant and, therefore, no relief could be granted to the appellant as against the Panchayat. The materials on record show that it was the beneficiary committee who engaged the appellant and he was working under the control of the said committee. The denial of employment is made by the said committee and the fresh appointment is also stated to be made in his place by the Convenor of the committee. So, we find no reason to disagree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. We also W.A.No.138/2010 3 notice that Clause VI(19) of Ext.R3(a) bye-laws of the Drinking Water Supply Scheme provides that it is the managing committee of the beneficiary committee to make appointment of the employees under it. We notice that the appellant has a case that Ext.R3(a) is not a genuine document. But, this being a disputed question, in writ jurisdiction, that dispute will go against the appellant. 3. But, having regard to the facts of the case, we clarify that this judgment or the judgment of the learned Single Judge will not stand in the way of the appellant moving the forums provided under the Industrial Disputes Act against the beneficiary committee and, in that event, the said forums shall decide the issue, based on the evidence adduced before them, and should not be influenced by anything stated in this judgment. Subject to this observation, the writ appeal is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR Judge P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge TKS