IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 7TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 26496 of 2009(F) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. PRAVEEN R.S., RAMP SERVICE AGENT, AIR INDIA AIR TRANSPORT SERVICES LTD, INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. BABU B, RAMP SERVICE AGENT, AIR INDIA AIR TRANSPORT SERVICES LTD, INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. MADHUSUDHANAN NAIR R, DO...........DO....... 4. JAYAKUAR D, DO...DO............. 5. SUBHASH KUMAR C, DO...........DO.......... 6. BIJUMON K, DO...........DO............ 7. JAYACHANDRAN A.V., DO...........DO............... 8. PRAVEEN D.S., DO...........DO............... 9. SANKAR R.S., DO............DO............... 10. SIVI T. DO..............DO........... 11. DHANESH N, RAMP SERVICE AGENT, AIR INDIA AIR TRANSPORT SERVICES LTD., INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. WP(C).No. 26496 of 2009 -2- 12. SATHEESH BABU B.L., 13. MANOJ M.A., DO..............DO............. 14. SATHEESH KUMAR C, DO.........DO............. 15. A. BALAKRISHNAN, DO..........DO.............. 16. CHANDRASEKHARAN M,P., DO.....DO......... 17. VIPIN S, DO......DO......... 18. ARUN S.K., DO.......DO......... 19. JINU G, DO.........DO.......... 20. ASHOK KUMAR G., DO...........DO...... 21. SONY V.P, DO........DO. 22. SYAM, KUMAR V, DO........DO........ 23. MANI K.V., DO........DO. 24. SIVAKUMAR ,A RAMP SERVICE AGENT, AIR INDIA AIR TRANSPORT SERVICES LTD., INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 25. ANOOP MOHANAN, DO.........DO. BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SMT.POOJA SURENDRAN WP(C).No. 26496 of 2009 -3- RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE NATIONAL AVIATION COMPANY LTD., NARIMANPOINT , MUMBAI REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, NATIONAL AVIATION COMPANY LTD., NARIMANPOINT, MUMBAI. 3. AIR INDIA AIR TRANSPORT SERVICE LTD., HANSALAYA BUILDING 5TH FLOOR, 15, BARAKHAMBA ROAD, NEW DELHI 110 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR. 4. THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, AIR INDIA AIR TRANSPORT SERVICES LTD., HANSALAYA BUILDING, 5TH FLOOR , 15,BARAKHAMBA ROAD , NEW DELHI 110 001. 5. THE GENERAL MANAGER, GROUND SERVICES DEPARTMENT, AIR INDIA OFFICE, CHENNAI. 6. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, GROUND SERVICES DEPARTMENT, INTERNATIONAL AIR PORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. AIR INDIA CHARATERS LTD., COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, NEDUMBASSERY, KOCHI6893 111, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE HEAD. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R3,4 SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI FOR R3,4 SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS FOR R3,4 SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R3,4 SRI.P.GOPINATH FOR R3,4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.26496 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 29th September,2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are working as Ramp Service Agents in the International Airport at Thiruvananthapuram. They had responded to Ext.P7-notification by the 3rd respondent which is the Air India Air Transport Services Ltd inviting applications for appointment to the post of Ramp Service Agents. The notification stipulated that the appointment will be on a contract basis for a period of three years which could be extended on the basis of the merit of the performance. In the case of some of the petitioners the original period had expired and contract was extended. In the case of the 1st petitioner the period of the extended contract is due to expire by 30.9.2009. Third respondent has not extended the period of contract or expressed its willingness to do so. But in the meanwhile, Ext.P14 communication has been mailed by the Asst. General Manager of the AIATSL of the 3rd respondent indicating W.P ( C) No.26496 of 2009 2 that man power is being engaged in the 3rd respondent under three years contract which is renewed for a further period of three years as approved by the competent authority. But there is no approval to further extend the contract. Therefore, it is mandatory not to continue or roster any staff who have completed the first renewal of the contract i.e. completion of total six years in AIATSL. This is under challenge in the writ petition. Petitioners are praying for a direction to the 3rd respondent to allow them to continue in service and also restraining the respondents from terminating the service of the petitioners and appointing fresh recruits to discharge the duties arising in the ground handling Department. Petitioners at the same time make it clear that they have not in this writ petition, prayed for a direction to regularise their services. 2. A statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioners. 3. Heard Sri. Elvin Peter, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.E.K. Nandakumar, learned counsel W.P ( C) No.26496 of 2009 3 appearing for the respondents. 4. It is pointed out that the original recruitment was on a contract basis, for a period of three years, which was extendable by a further unspecified period on the basis of merit. The contract for the subsequent period has been produced along with the statement which shows that the renewal of the contract is for three years but the date of expiry of the renewed contract is also mentioned, in the case of the 1st petitioner as 30.9.2009. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that an instrumentality of the State should not resort to successive contracts, which is to deny the benefit of regularisation to the employees. It is contended that they do the same duties as that of other employees, Ramp Assistants, who are engaged on a regular basis. Though the petitioners do not claim the benefit of regularisation, their services need not be dispensed with, for the purpose of accommodating other employees on a fixed term contract basis, it is contended. 6. I do not find force in the submission made by the W.P ( C) No.26496 of 2009 4 petitioners. They have no case that the original employment on a contract basis, was a camouflage for a regular recruitment, to avoid the burden of regular recruitment to a cadre post. They took the contract which was offered by the 3rd respondent. They served for the period of contract. Thereafter, the period was extended for one more term. There is a specific date of expiry of the term of contract which varies from person to person and in the case of the 1st petitioner , it is 30.9.2009. It is not a case where a further extension is mandated under the renewed contract. The date of expiry is specified. Unless there is a fresh contract, the period of contract expires on the specified date. 7. It is relevant to note the definition of retrenchment in Section 2 (oo) of the I.D Act and the same reads as follows: " "Retrenchment" means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action but does not include - W.P ( C) No.26496 of 2009 5 (a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or (b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or (bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation on that behalf contained therein; or (c) termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill-health 8. Non-renewal of the term of contract and termination of the services of such non-renewal does not qualify as a retrenchment within the meaning of the I.D Act. 9. Though the petitioners themselves do not claim the benefit of regularisation, they refer to Ext.P16 Scheme which essentially comprehends casual employees. It provides for the right of a casual employee to be considered when a regular recruitment is launched. The fact that petitioners have served as employees on a fixed term W.P ( C) No.26496 of 2009 6 contract basis will obviously be taken into account when a recruitment is made. That will subject to the rules and regulations which are then prevailing. 10. I do not find any illegality in the employer deciding that a fresh recruitment of employees on a fixed term contract basis might become necessary. It does not mean that the present petitioners will not be considered if such fresh contracts are contemplated and decided upon by the employer. But it is up to the respondents to decide the mode of engagement. I am sure, the fact that petitioners have chosen to approach this Court will not be treated as a blot by respondents if they decide to go for a fresh batch of employees on a fixed term contract basis . Respondents are an instrumentality of the State and they are only interested in regulating their activities in the larger public interest and in the interest of the organisation as such. Subject to the above, writ petition is disposed of. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.26496 of 2009 7 W.P ( C) No.26496 of 2009 8