IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 27TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 5TH ASWINA 1932 WA.No. 1625 of 2010 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.22149/2010 Dated 15/07/2010 .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: ------------------------------ 1. CENTRAL STATE FARM EMPLOYEES UNION (INTUC) ARALAM FARM, ARALAM P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT. 2. O.V.JAMES, S/O.VARGHESE, FIELD MAN, ARALAM FARM, ARALAM, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAVINDRAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL SRI.M.A.FIROZ RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SCHEDULED CASTE/SCHEDULE TRIBES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, SCHEDULED TRIBES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ADMINISTRATOR, ARALAM FARM P.O., ARALAM FARM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY SPECIAL GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. P. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No. 1625 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, C.J. Aggrieved by judgment dated 15.07.2010 in W.P.(C) No.22149 of 2010, the unsuccessful petitioners therein preferred the present appeal. 2. A particular piece of land of about 3060 Hectors of Aralam Farm in the Kannur District was initially acquired by the State of Kerala for the benefit of State Farm Corporation of India owned and controlled by the Government of India. Subsequently, on the tripartite agreement dated 21.06.2004 between the Government of India, the abovementioned Corporation and the State of Kerala, the abovementioned property came to be transferred to the State of Kerala for a consideration. While the consideration of the abovementioned transfer was pending, the employees of the abovementioned Corporation employed in connection with the abovementioned farms approached this Court by way of filing W.P.(C) No. WA No. 1625 of 2010 -:2:- 22346 of 2009, seeking protection of their employment as well as the conditions of service applicable to them. In the said writ petition an affidavit was filed by the State of Kerala. The relevant portion of the said affidavit was extracted in judgment dated 29.03.2010 in the abovementioned writ petition. A Division Bench of this Court of which one of us (J.Chelameswar, C.J.) was a member, on an examination of the affidavit opined that it contained an undertaking to protect the conditions of the service of the employees in the following words: “The substance of the abovementioned three paragraphs is that the employees of the members of the petitioner-Union would, in no way be prejudiced by the change in the status of the property. The State, in its counter affidavit, categorically stated that the service conditions of the employees of the Farm would at least, remain the same, as if they were in the employment of the Corporation. It is categorically mentioned at paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit that the service conditions of the employees of the Farm would be re-determined, based on the service conditions of their counterpart in the State Government Service. We make it clear that such an exercise shall not result in any detriment to the service conditions of the employees of the Farm.” 3. It appears that the State Farm Corporation of India (the original employer of the members of the appellant Union) WA No. 1625 of 2010 -:3:- revised the pay scales of its employees subsequent to the abovementioned tripartite agreement. For the sake of completion of the narration of the facts it may be mentioned here that the abovementioned Corporation owns some more agricultural Farms other than those already transferred in favour of State of Kerala and employs many others. 4. The appellants claim that the benefit of the pay- revision given to the employees who remained in the service of the abovementioned Corporation is also required to be extended to the members of the appellants' Union for which they made a representation to the State of Kerala which was rejected by Ext.P9 order dated 06.07.2010. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants herein preferred W.P.(C) No.22149 of 2010 which was dismissed by the judgment under appeal. Hence the present appeal. 6. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants Sri.P.Ravindran argued that the State of Kerala as well as the learned Judge erred in coming to the conclusion that the undertaking given before this Court in W.P.(C) No.22346 of 2009 WA No. 1625 of 2010 -:4:- does not cover the present situation. The learned counsel submits that until the State of Kerala makes Rules dealing with the service conditions of the members of the appellants Union, they are entitled for the benefits conferred from time to time upon the employees by their erstwhile employer in view of the undertaking recorded by this Court in the abovementioned writ petition. 7. In paragraph 14 of Ext.P9 it is stated as follows: “14. The petitioner unions also rely on the judgment in W.P.(C) No.22346 of 2009(k) to argue for parity with the Central pay scales; but on a perusal it is seen that this judgment only stipulates that 'the pay and allowances of the existing employees of Aralam Farm would in no way be prejudiced and shall not result in any detriment to their service condition as and when the Farm is registered as a company'. This would cover only the pay and allowances that the employees were enjoying at the time of separation from the SFCI; it would not cover the facilities subsequently extended to SFCI employees after the transfer agreement was signed on 21.06.2004; as such there is no automatic entitlement for the employees in Aralam Farm to sixth Central Pay Commission benefits.” In substance, the State of Kerala was of the view that the undertaking given by it in the earlier round of litigation, W.P.(C) No.22346 of 2009, covered only the protection of the conditions WA No. 1625 of 2010 -:5:- of service as they existed on the date of transfer of the service of the members of the appellant Union pursuant to the tripartite agreement referred to above, but not the benefits, if any, (to accrue to the employees who remained in the service of the erstwhile employer of the members of the first appellant Union) extended subsequent to the tripartite agreement. 8. We do not see any error in the order impugned in W.P.(C) No. 22149 of 2010 or in the judgment under appeal. In the circumstances, we do not see any reason calling for interference in the judgment under appeal. The Writ Appeal is dismissed in the admission stage. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice. P.R. Ramachandra Menon, Judge. ttb WA No. 1625 of 2010 -:6:-