IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2010 / 30TH POUSHA 1931 WA.No. 33 of 2010 ------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.32571/2004 Dated 19/08/2009 .................... APPELLANT/4TH RESPONDENT IN THE WRIT PETITION ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- B.SUNITHA, KARIMKUTTY HARIJAN COLONY, URIYAKODE, VELLANADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.A.K.PREETHA RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN THE WPC --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.SUSEELA, JAYAVILASOM, VELLANADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM. 3. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, SASTHA KRIPA OFFICE COMPLEX, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE BRANCH MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK, VELLANADU BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R2 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL R3 & R4 BY ADV.SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A. No.33 of 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 19th August, 2009, interfering with Ext.P6 award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Kollam, the 4th respondent in the writ petition has filed this writ appeal. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the Bank. 3. It is undisputed that the mother of the writ petitioner was a Part-time Sweeper and during her absence as she was required to arrange a Badali Part-time Sweeper, the writ petitioner was working as Part-time Sweeper. After the retirement of the mother of the writ petitioner in the year 1998, W.A. No.33 of 2010 2 the Bank appointed the writ petitioner as Part-time Sweeper from 1.11.1998. This appointment was challenged by the appellant herein before the Industrial Tribunal, inter alia, contending that she is senior and her claim is to be better considered than that of the writ petitioner. The Industrial Tribunal accepted the contentions of the appellant herein and passed Ext.P6 award. Aggrieved by the same when the writ petitioner approached this Court, the learned Single Judge noting the fact that the writ petitioner had worked for more than 500 days as Part-time sweeper prior to and after the retirement of her mother and as the 4th respondent had worked hardly for 54 days, and especially noting the fact that by virtue of the interim orders passed by this Court the writ petitioner has continued to work as Part-time Sweeper, set aside the impugned award and upheld the appointment of the writ petitioner as Part-time W.A. No.33 of 2010 3 Sweeper. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contends that as the appellant was senior to the writ petitioner, her claim was rightly upheld by the Industrial Tribunal and as the same being a finding of facts, the learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered with the same. 5. On going through the reasons and findings of the learned Single Judge, we find that there is no illegality or perversity in the appreciation of the award and the facts situation and as such, we find that there is no merit in the writ appeal. So far as the apprehension of the appellant of her claim for being continued, even the learned Single Judge has made it clear in the impugned judgment itself that if there is any vacancy of Part-time Sweeper occurs in the Bank or its nearby branch, her claim should be considered on priority. As almost a positive W.A. No.33 of 2010 4 direction has been given by the learned Single Judge protecting the interests of the appellant, we direct that if the appellant makes any such representation and if there is any vacancy of Part-time Sweeper available in the nearby branch of the Bank, the Bank shall appoint her as Part-time Sweeper as expeditiously as possible. With this observation/direction the writ appeal is disposed of. S.R.Bannurmath, Chief Justice Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge vns