IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH JUNE 2008 / 23RD JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 17062 of 2008(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED EX-SERVICEMEN SECURITY STAFF ASSOCIATION, C/O.BSNL EMPLOYEES UNION, COCHIN DEVASWOM BUILDINGS, 3RD FLOOR, DISTRICT COUNSELLING OFFICE, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY V.G.LONAPPAN. 2. VASUDEVAN N.R., SECURITY GUARD, PUNNAMPARAMBU EXCHANGE, VADAKKANCHERY, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL RESETTLEMENT, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, WEST BLOCK - 4, R.K.PURAM, NEW DELHI - 110 066. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, THRISSUR. 3. THE KERALA STATE EX-SERVICEMEN DEVELOPMENT & REHABILITATION CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH FOR R1 SHRI.C.S.RAMANADHAN, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.17062 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 13th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T The 1st petitioner claims to be a union representing the security guards employed by the 2nd respondent. According to the petitioner, irrespective of the change of contractor, the workers represented by the 1st petitioner union have been continuously engaged by the 2nd respondent. Now, in the guise of engaging a new contractor, the 2nd respondent is proposing to terminate the services of the security guards represented by the 1st petitioner, is the grievance raised in the writ petition. The petitioners, therefore, seek the following Reliefs: “a) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing the 2nd respondent not to terminate the services of existing Ex-servicemen engaged for security duty for appointment of fresh hands employed through the 3rd respondent, b) Hold that the Ex-servicemen hitherto engaged for security duty by the 2nd respondent are not to be replaced for induction of new personnel recruited through the 3rd respondent,” 2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the BSNL submits that they are not engaging any of the members of the 1st w.p.c.17062/08 2 petitioner directly. From time to time tenders are invited for supply of security guards. As per the directions of the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent can only engage those security agencies recognised by the 1st respondent. According to them, there is no employer-employee relationship between the security guards deputed by the agency who is awarded the contract for supply of security guards and the 2nd respondent. They are purely contract labourers. As and when the contract expires, security guards engaged by the agency also has to leave the establishment so as to enable the security guards employed by the new contractor to take charge, is the contention raised by the standing counsel for the 2nd respondent. In fact a learned Judge of this Court in W.P(C).No. 19020/2005 in an identical matter held thus: “2. The respondents 1 to 4 have filed a statement, resisting the prayers in the Writ Petition. According to them, they award the work on contract basis to security agencies, sponsored by the 5th respondent. They bring in Security Guards along with them and when their contracts are terminated, those Security Guards are taken back and fresh agencies come, with their own Security Guards. It is also pointed out that the point raised by the petitioners, is covered against them by the Judgment in Writ Petition (C) No.3353/05, which was confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.703/06. But, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said decision is distinguishable on facts. The point raised by the petitioners in this case, relying on Clause 23 of Ext.P5 was not raised or considered in w.p.c.17062/08 3 that decision, it is submitted. 3. Going by Ext.P5 scheme, I do not feel that the Ministry has an intention to retain the existing Security Guards brought in by the present agencies for ever. If that be so, there is no point in making a provision for giving the contract to other security agencies by rotation. Ext.P5 scheme does not contemplate a situation, where the Security Guards can continue even if the contract with their agency is terminated. The contentions to the contrary, are unsustainable. I am of the view that the point raised by the petitioners is covered against them by the aforementioned decisions. In the result, the Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed.” Following the above decision, this writ petition is also dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge