IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2009 / 15TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 18421 of 2009(S) OA.763/2007 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 3.12.2008 PETITIONERS: 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN P.O., CHENNAI - 3. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MECHANICAL ENGINEER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALGHAT DIVISION, PALAKKAD. 3. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALGHAT DIVISION, PALGHAT. BY ADV. SRI.M.C.CHERIAN,SR.STANDING COUNSEL,RAILWAYS RESPONDENT: K. RAMADASAN, S/O.K.GOPU, RETIRED DRIVER (MASTER CRAFTSMAN), SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALGHAT DIVISION, RESIDING AT "GAYATHRI NILAYAM", 11/376, THOMAS NAGAR, KAKKANNI, KALLEKULANGARA POST, PALGHAT - 678 009. BY / / THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/07/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.18421 OF 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The point raised by the writ petitioners is covered against them by several decisions of this Court. The point in dispute is whether the applicant in O.A. No.364 of 2004 was a project casual labourer, for the reason that he was working under the construction wing. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, relying on the decision of the Apex Court in L. Robert D'Souza v. Executive Engineer, Southern Railway and another (1982)1 S.C.C. (L&S)124), allowed the Original Application. The applicant, as a casual labourer, was transferred to various work sites. It is a distinguishing feature, which will show that he is not a project casual labourer, though working under the construction wing, as found by the Apex Court in the aforementioned case of L. Robert D'Souza v. Executive Engineer, Southern Railway and another. A W.P.(C)NO. 18421/2009 2 casual labourer, engaged in a project, will be retrenched on completion of the project and will not be transferred. So, we find no reason to entertain this Writ Petition. We agree with the reasons and conclusion of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. (K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR) JUDGE (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE sp/ W.P.(C)NO. 18421/2009 3 K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. W.P.(C) NO.18421/2009 JUDGMENT 6th July, 2009 W.P.(C)NO. 18421/2009 4