IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2011 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1933 WA.No. 54 of 2008() ------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.20784/2006 .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT 1 & 2: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. M.S. SREEKUMAR, KALARICKAL HOUSE, MANAKULANGARA P.O., KODAKAVU, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. RAJU NAIR C., KANDATHAZHATH HOUSE, VALATHUR P.O.,THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR (PANAMPALLI NAGAR) RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------------- 1. THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALABHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, P.H. CIRCLE OFFICE, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, THRISSUR. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.H. DIVISION OFFICE, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, VADANAPPILLY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN, SC, KWA FOR R1 TO 4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.CHELAMESWAR, C.J. & ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============================== W.A. NO. 54 OF 2008 =================== Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T Antony Dominic, J. The issue relating to the termination of the appellants from the service of the Kerala Water Authority was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, Ernakulam in terms of the provisions contained in the Industrial Disputes Act. Reference was registered as ID No.36/96 and by Ext.P9 award, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the workers as operators with continuity of service, but without any backwages or monetary benefits. The respondents in this appeal challenged the award before this Court by filing WP(C)No.20784/2006. By the judgment under appeal, a learned Single Judge of this Court quashed the award. It is aggrieved by the said judgment, the appeal is filed. The main reason which weighed with the learned Single Judge is that, in Ext.P7 judgment in OP No.12454/93, a Division Bench of this Court has already held that the appellants are not entitled to continue in the service of the 1st respondent. 2. We have gone through Ext.P7 judgment which shows WA No.54/08 :2 : that the appellants had sought regularization in service claiming the benefit of the decision of the Supreme Court in Jacob v. Kerala Water Authority (1990(2) KLT 673). This claim of the appellants was negatived and this Court held that the appellants are not entitled for continuance or regularization. Once it has been so held, even if their services have been terminated by the respondents as claimed in the writ appeal, the Labour Court could not have answered the reference in favour of the appellants and directed their reinstatement in service. In that view of the matter, we do not find any illegality in the view taken by the learned Single Judge warranting interference in this appeal. Writ appeal fails and it is dismissed. J.CHELAMESWAR CHIEF JUSTICE. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE. Rp