IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2011 / 20TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 23840 of 2011(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- CHANDRAMATHI.K,AGED 49 YEARS, W/O.SUDHAKARAN,KULAMPATTA VEEDU,MANNALAYA POST- 679357,ANAMANGAD,MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,INDUSTRIES(K)DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KERALA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD,VANCHIYOOR,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. PROJECT OFFICER,DISTRICT KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES OFFICE,MALAPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.K.P.HARISH,SC,KERALA KHADI BOARD FOR R2 & 3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.E.M.ABDUL KHADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 23840/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED BY THE KERALA KHADI WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD. EXHIBIT P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF MUSTER ROLL. EXHIBIT P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12.08.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT SECRETARY. RESPONDANTS'S EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE dnc K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P(c)No. 23840 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner was working as a Spinning Worker on piece rate basis at the Departmental Khadi Spinning Center, Anamangad, Malappuram. She was engaged as a Sales Assistant on daily wages from 05.06.2007. According to the petitioner, she had worked continuously till 11.07.2011. It is her allegation that due to political reasons, the third respondent orally directed the petitioner to take a break for 10 days initially and thereafter, she has not been admitted for duty. She alleges that the respondents are going to fill up her vacancy by engaging other temporary hands. Therefore, she claims preference in the matter of engagement, if other temporary hands are going to be engaged. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 denying the allegations made in the Writ Petition. According to the counter affidavit, the petitioner was terminated only because the temporary work entrusted to her was over and they are not proposing to engage any other person W.P(c)No. 23840 of 2011 2 as temporary worker in her place. Therefore, it is contended that the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if no temporary hands are needed at present, the respondents would certainly engage other temporary hands in the future. 4. This allegation is refuted by the counsel for the respondents. He also submits that if need for engaging such temporary hands from the open market or through employment exchange were to arise in future, the case of the petitioner would also be considered in the light of the experience that she has gained by working for third respondent. 5. In view of the above submissions, no further orders are required to be passed in this Writ Petition. This Writ Petition is closed recording the submissions referred to above. sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE /True copy/ P.A.to judge ln W.P(c)No. 23840 of 2011 3