IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD AUGUST 2011 / 1ST BHADRA 1933 WA.No. 2624 of 2007() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.1889/2006 Dated 09/01/2007 .................... APPELLANT: RESPONDENT 2: --------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. GEORGE MECHERIL RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT 1, 3 & 4: ----------------------------------------------- 1. B. PRADEEP KUMAR, S/O. K.K.BHASKARAN, SALES PROMOTION OFFICER, COIRFED SHOWROOM, AMARAVATI ROAD, WARUD, AMARAVATI DISTRICT, MAHARASHTRA. 2. G. RAJENDRA PILLAI, SALES PROMOTION OFFICER, COIRFED SHOWROOM, SILIGURI P.O., DARJEELING DISTRICT, WEST BENGAL. 3. B. SARATCHANDRAN, S/O.BALAKRISHNA PILLAI SARASWATHY VILAS, KURUMANDAL, PARAVUR. 4. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE COIR MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED NO.679, ALAPPUZHA, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 5. MANAGING DIRECTOR, COIRFED, POST BOX NO.4616, ALAPPUZHA. W.A. 2624/2007 2 6. Y. SATHEESH, COIRFED SHOWROOM, INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH, PIN-452 007. ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN, SC, COIRFED FOR R4 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.8.2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.A. NO. 2624 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2011. J U D G M E N T C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. This appeal is filed by the State against the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to regularize the service of the respondents who are appointed in the Kerala State Co-operative Coir Marketing Federation Ltd. on contract basis as Sales Promotion Assistants, later as Sales Promotion Officers. Even though special rules were made in 1995, petitioners contended before the learned Single Judge that they were not governed by the special rules and the employer in the resolution of the Board of Directors, decided to regularize contract employees. Even though the Government Pleader probably is right in saying that without Government concurrence, Company cannot appoint employees on contract basis and regularize them, what we notice is that the respondents are in service as of now for the last eighteen years. We therefore, do not find any ground to interfere with the direction issued by the learned Single Judge. The writ appeal is devoid of any merit. It is dismissed. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, (JUDGE). P.S. GOPINATHAN, (JUDGE) knc/-