IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2011 / 2ND ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 2038 of 2009(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCTS UNION LTD., PATTOM, TVPM - 695 004. BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR/REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (DIARY), DIARY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. B. MADHUKUMAR, S/O. BHASKARAN NAIR, KUDCTRKONATHU VEEDU, CHERIYAKONNI.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. S. SANALKUMAR, ATHIRA BHAVAN, UNDAPPARA, POOVACHAL.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. R. DANIEL, VELIYAVILA, VADAKKUMURIVILA VEEDU, KANJIRAMKULAM, PUTHIYATHURA.P.O. 5. S. GNANA DAS, KUSAKUDIVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, IRUMIL, NEYYATINKARA.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY FOR R2-5 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.M.MANOJ. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C) NO.2038 of 2009 EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.14549 OF 2008 DATED 26.5.2008 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE ARBITRATION COURT. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF CALL LETTER DATED 5.1.2009 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.17831/07 DATED 16.1.2009. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.2038 of 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a co-operative society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act engaged in the procurement, processing, marketing and distribution of milk and milk products. Respondents 2 to 5 were temporarily engaged as workers by the petitioner society during three different spells from 1998 to 2001. They along with others filed writ petitions in this Court after the expiry of the term for which they were engaged, seeking regularisation in service. Two of such writ petition were dismissed by Ext.P1 judgment delivered on 26.5.2008 with the observation that the petitioners may move under section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act seeking redressal of their grievances. Accordingly, respondents 2 to 5 moved the Arbitrator by filing separate petitions under section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act wherein they sought permanency in service. 2. While matters stood thus, the Managing Director of the petitioner society issued a notification inviting applications from eligible persons for appointment to the post of Salesman/Plant Attender and a written test was also scheduled to be held on 25.1.2009. At that stage, respondents 2 to 5 filed a representation before the Director of W.P.(C) No.2038 of 2009 2 Diary Development complaining that if the vacancies are filled up by direct recruitment, the relief sought in the arbitration cases will be lost to them. Considering the said representation, the Director of Dairy Development passed Ext.P4 order staying the written test scheduled to be held on 25.1.2009. The instant writ petition was thereupon filed challenging Ext.P4 order. The main contention raised in this writ petition is that as the issue regarding the regularisation of respondents 2 to 5 in service is pending before the Arbitrator, the Director of Diary Development could not have passed the impugned order. 3. When this writ petition came up for hearing on 21.1.2009, this Court passed an interim order permitting the petitioners to make the selection, prepare a select list and fill up all the vacancies except four vacancies. This Court also directed that the said four vacancies shall be filled up only after obtaining orders from this Court. This Court also directed that it will be open to the petitioner and the party respondents to request the Arbitrator to expedite the proceedings. 4. When the writ petition came up for hearing today, the learned counsel on both sides submitted that arbitration cases were disposed of on 3.7.2009. While the learned counsel for the petitioner W.P.(C) No.2038 of 2009 3 submitted that the arbitration cases were dismissed, Sri.P.V.Baby, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 5 submitted that respondents 2 to 5 did not pursue the arbitration cases and they were dismissed on the respective petitioners in the arbitration case submitting that they are not pressing the said cases in view of the offer made by the petitioner society that the claim of respondents 2 to 5 for regularisation will be considered if they withdraw the arbitration cases. Respondents 2 to 5 have also filed I.A.No.9645 of 2011 in this Court seeking regularisation in service. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if respondents 2 to 5 are only seeking consideration of their claim for regularisation, the petitioner can have no objection to the same and that in view of the fact that arbitration cases have been disposed of, the writ petition may be allowed and the petitioner may be permitted to proceed with and complete the selection process. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents did not oppose the said request. In such circumstances, having regard to the fact that the arbitration cases filed by respondents 2 to 5 stand dismissed, whatever be the reason for dismissal, I am of the opinion that the direction issued by the Director of Diary Development cannot be sustained. I accordingly allow the writ petition, quash Ext.P4 and W.P.(C) No.2038 of 2009 4 permit the petitioner to proceed with and complete the selection process. Needless to say, this will not stand in the way of respondents 2 to 5 from pursuing their claim for regularisation, if permissible in law. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.