IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 18TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 4082 of 2008(J) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. T.RAMADASAN, (ASSISTANT MANAGER OF KERALA STATE COCONUT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION) AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. T.KUMARAN, THURUTHUMMAL POST KUNNATHARA. 2. E.P.SANKARANKUTTY (ELECTRICIAN , KERALA STATE COCONUT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. M.V.K.VARIYAR MANALIL THRIKKOVIL, CHALIYA , KOILANDI. 3. VIJAYAN KAMMANCHERRY (OPERATOR KERALA STATE COCONUT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. KAMMARAN NAIR KAMMANCHERRY HOUSE, THUIRUVANGUR. 4. V.K.RAJENDRAN, (MANAGER PURCHASE AND SALES DO..DO.. AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.K.KRISHNAN LAKSHMI HOUSE,. ELATHUR. 5. RAJAN, C.J. (DRIVER DO.DO.) AGED 49 YEARS,S/O. JOSEPH,CHEMBAKAM PONNAMKAYAM, THIRUVAMBADI. 6. M.SEKHARAN, (FITTER DO..DO.) AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. KANARAN, MADHURIMA, CHEEKILODE, VIA ATHOLI. 7. K.V.SREEDHARAN (WEIGHMAN DO..DO.) AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR KUNNAMVALLY HOUSE, THRIVANGUR. 8. P.K.MOHANAN, (OPERATOR DO..DO.) AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. NARAYANAN PUTHUKULANGARA, CHMABAKAM, KALPATHUR. 9. BABU KUNIYIL (OPERATOR DO..,D0) AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.SANKARANKUTTY ASWASTHY, KAPPADU. W.P.(C) NO.4082/2008 10. T.K.RAMANAN (CHEMIST DO..DO.) AGED 54 YEARS, S/O............... THARAYIL HOUSE, KADAKKARAPALLI. 11. K.P.GEORGE (OPERATOR DO...DO.. AGED 51 YEARS, S/O............... ELINGIPPARA, CHALAKKUDI. 12. K.P.VIJAYAN (SENIOR WELDER DO..DO... AGED 54 YEARS, S/O............... KALATHITHARA, CHEMMANATHUKARA, VAIKOM. 13. K.T.RAGHAVAN (EXPELLER OPERATOR DO..DO AGED 56 YEARS, S/O................. RAKHENDU, POST THIRUVANGUR. 14. M.RAJEEVAN (WATCH MAN DO,,DO,, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.......... MELEDATH HOUSE, POST THIRUVANGUR. BY ADVS.MR.C.KHALID MR.R.O.MUHAMED SHEMEEM MR.T.P.SAJID RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHEIF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA STATE COCONUT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, VELLAYAMBALAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. W.P.(C) NO.4082/2008 4. LABOUR COMMISSION STATE OF KERALA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADDL. R5 IS IMPLEADED. 5. MAYIN KOYA, S/O. MAMMED, AGED 57 YEARS, KATTILPEEDIKAYIL HOUSE, MAKKADE P.O., KAKKODI VIA, KOZHIKODE DIST. ADDL. R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 3.0.08 IN IA. 12285/08. R1 , R3 & R4 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN R2 BY MR.MOHAMMED SHIRAZ,SC,KERALA KERA KARS, SMT.P.VIJAYAMMA, MR.V.KRISHNA MENON. ADDL. R5 BY MR.SANTHARAM.P THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/09/2009,ALONG WITH WPC NO. 31564 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ....................... W.P.(C)s.4082 & 31564/2008 ....................... Dated this the 9th day of September, 2009 JUDGMENT Common issues are involved in these two writ petitions. Therefore, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. I will refer to the facts in W.P.(C).4082/2008 for the sake of convenience. 2. Petitioners were employed in the 2nd respondent Corporation. 2nd respondent was constituted at the instance of the Government in the year 1975. Unfortunately, the 2nd respondent Company did not operate successfully and therefore, employees of the Company were offered a facility to retire under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. This itself was pursuant to a report submitted by the Committee constituted by the State Government to ascertain the possibilities for revival of the Company. Employees were given the right to opt for VRS and it seems many of the employees had done so. There upon, they were given the benefit of retrenchment compensation and those persons who had opted for VRS accepted the compensation. W.P.(C).4082 & 31564/08 2 3. Other employees like the petitioners did not opt for VRS and therefore, they have been given a notice intimating them that the Company has been ordered to be wound up and the factories would be closed down after 30 days from 8.8.2009. This is evidenced by Ext.R2(a). There upon the petitioners were retired from service with effect from 7.9.2007. Except one of them, received retrenchment compensation. 4. Petitioners contend that there is a possibility of the Company reviving its operations and in such circumstances, their claim for continued employment must be kept alive. It is contended that the Company had not implemented revised pattern on a par with the Government employees brought into force in the year 1993 and therefore, employees of the Company who continued in service till 2000 were not paid DA on a par with that of Government servants. It is further contended that in the event of the Company deciding to liquidate itself, workmen would be left W.P.(C).4082 & 31564/08 3 without any option, even if ultimately it is found that they are entitled to any compensation. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent Corporation as also by the Government. I have already referred to Ext.R2(b) in this regard. I heard learned counsel on both sides. 6. That the Company is in existence since 2000 is not a matter which is disputed. That most of the employees had accepted voluntary retirement under the Scheme is also not disputed. Those who did not opt for VRS were paid retrenchment compensation as well. As on date, there is no proposal for a revival of the fortunes of the Company. In these circumstances, I do not find my way to issue any direction as sought for by the petitioners. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the event of the Company being revived, the claim of the petitioners should be kept alive to be prosecuted at least at W.P.(C).4082 & 31564/08 4 that point of time. So also, if the Company is amalgamated with any other concern, pursuant to any action taken by the Government, those among the employees who had not proceeded under the VRS should be permitted to prosecute their claim for employment in the amalgamated concern. 8. I am of the view that this is a reasonable request. After all, the Company came to be closed because it was found to be non profitable and if the Government itself takes a policy decision to amalgamate the Company with another ongoing concern, then those among the erstwhile employees of the 2nd respondent who continue to aspire for employment is to be given a chance to prosecute their claim in accordance with law, at that point of time. 9. In the result, writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions. 10. If the 2nd respondent Company is amalgamated with another ongoing concern, and consequently there is a W.P.(C).4082 & 31564/08 5 transfer of assets and liabilities of the concern, petitioners shall be entitled to prosecute their claim for employment in the new concern by approaching the Government at that point of time. In the event of the Government and the 2nd respondent deciding to liquidate the assets of the 2nd respondent, then it would be open to the petitioners to prosecute the claim for any arrears of wages or DA as the case may be in accordance with law at that point of time. The directions issued herein in favour of the petitioners would be applicable to the additional 5th respondent also. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs