IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2009 / 23 POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 35214 of 2008(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. ANIL KUMAR.V.K., S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY 38 YEARS, VELLAMKUZHIYIL HOUSE, THAYIKKATTUKARA PO., AMBATTUKAVU, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM. 2. BIJUKUMAR.P.S., S/O.SUBRAMANIAN, 33 YEARS, PALAMATTOM HOUSE, NARAKKAL, ERNAKULAM. 3. RAMANAN.K.V., S/O.VALLON, 38 YEARS KODUMBIL HOUSE, SOUTH CHITTOOR PO., ERNAKULAM. 4. SUDHEER.M.A., S/O.ARAVIDHAKSHAN, 38 YEARS,MALICKAPARAMBIL HOUSE UDAYAMPEROOR. 5. SURESH.S., S/O.SIVATHANU, SREEMANDHIRAM HMT JN., KALAMASSERY. 6. SHAJI.M.S., 37 YEARS, MOLOTH HOUSE HMT COLONY, KALAMASSERY. 7. CHERIAN.P.V.S/O.M.V.VARGHESE, PEREKK- ATTIL KILITHATTILHOUSE, VADAKODE PO., KOTHAM- ANGALAM. 8. HARIDAS.M.S., S/O.SANKARAN NAIR 47 YEARS, MOOLAMATTATH HOUSE,VARAPPETTY PO., KOTHAMANGALAM. 9. SAJU.P.L. , S/O.LOAN AGED 34 YEARS,. MOLOTH HOUSE, HMT COLONY, KALAMASSERY. 10. RAJENDRAN.U.V., S/O.VASU, 47 YEARS, MENONPARAMBIL HOUSE, MAMANGALAM, PALARIVATTOM PO., 11. BIJU.M.N., S/O.NARAYANAN, 37 YEARS MORUTHARAYIL VEEDU, MARADU PO., 12. BOBAN C.ARACKAL, 41YEARS ARACKAL VEEDU, AZHAKAM PO., ANGAMALY. WP(C).No. 35214 of 2008(P) 13. AJUMUDHIN., S/O.MUHAMADHALY, MADATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE DESHABIMANI ROAD, KALOOR. 14. BIJU.P.B., S/O.BASKARAN, 35 YEARS PARAYIL VEEDU, THAIKKATTUKARA PO.,ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.R.DIVAKARAN SRI.VINUCHAND RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. HINDUASTAN MACHINE TOOLS LTD., NO.59, BELLARY ROAD, BANGLORE-560032, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. CHAIRMAN, HINDUSTAN MACHINE TOOLS LTD., NO.59 BELLARY ROAD, BANGLORE-560032. 3. GENERAL MANAGER, HINDUSTAN MACHINE TOOLS LTD., HMT COLONY POST, KALAMASSERY-683503, ERNAKULAM. 4. PERSONAL MANAGER (HR)M HINDUSTAN MACHINE TOOLS LTD., HMT COLONY POST, KALAMASSERY-683503.,ERNAKULAM. 5. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, GOVT.OF INDIA, UDYOGA BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. ADV. SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI (SR.) FOR R1 &3 SRI.SAJI VARGHESE FOR R1 & 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.35214/2008-P ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 13th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioners have approached this Court aggrieved by the notification that has been issued as per Ext.P2, by which applications have been invited by the respondents for appointment in various posts. The grievance projected by the respondents is in a narrow compass. According to them, they have already completed three years apprenticeship in HMT and, subsequently, they are working on casual contract labour. It is pointed out that in view of the stipulations contained in Ext.P2 regarding the age limit and as there is no relaxation of age for the petitioners, they are unable to compete for the selection post as already initiated by the respondents. 2. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, a statement has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4, wherein justifications have been pleaded as to why the age limit has been fixed as per the notification. It is pointed out that the stipulations contained in the notifications issued by similarly placed institutions are under different circumstances and, they are W.P.(C) No.35214/2008 -:2:- not binding on the respondents as they are acting on their own rules and regulations in the matter. 3. It is also contended by the respondents that they are already working under the contractors and, therefore, the petitioners have no subsisting right also. 4. Along with the reply affidavit, the petitioners have produced Ext.P8 representation submitted before the Central Labour Commissioner raising their grievances as is now raised in the writ petition. It is pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the respondents that there is no employer-employee relationship between the respondents and the petitioners, therefore the application cannot be maintained. It is a matter for the competent authority to take a decision. With liberty to the petitioners to pursue such remedy to approach the competent authority, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms