IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2009 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 12670 of 2009(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. ALEYAMMA PHILIPOSE, OVUKANDATHIL, ELANTHOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. 2. SOBHA MATHEW, VALIYAKOCHETHU, ELATHOOR EAST P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. NISHA SANTHOSH, VADAKKAMANNIL, ELANTHOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. PRASANNA SOMAN, KUTTIKALAYIL, ELANTHOOR EAST P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.PURUSHOTHAMA KAIMAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOTR, MILMA, SHEELA BHAVAN, PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE MANAGER, MILMA CHILLING PLANT, KULASHEKARAPETTA, PATHANAMTHITTA. ADV. SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) FOR R1 SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.12670/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED TO R1 BY THE PETIITOENRS DATED 02/04/2009. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.12670 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 10th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioners' claim is that in the chilling plant at Kulasekharapetta in Pathanamthitta district belonging to the respondents, they were appointed as Sweepers cum Cleaners. According to them, initially they were being paid wages at Rs.600/- and presently, Rs.2,400/- each. They claim that they should be regularised in the services of the respondent. 2. On instructions, the learned standing counsel submits that the petitioners have not been appointed by the respondent. It is stated that cleaning work is entrusted to outsiders on annual contract basis, and the petitioners may have been engaged by the contractors. 3. The petitioners have not produced any document before this Court to substantiate their claim of employment under the respondent. In such a situation, this Court will not be justified in issuing any direction as sought for. Be that as it may, the WP(C) No.12670/2009 -2- petitioners submit that they have filed Ext.P1 before the 1st respondent claiming regularisation in service, and seek an order of its consideration. 4. Having regard to the claim raised in Ext.P1, I think that it is only appropriate that the 1st respondent considers Ext.P1. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg