IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2009 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1931 WA.No. 1131 of 2005() ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.38471/2003 Dated 12/01/2005 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONERS IN W.P.(C) ----------------------- 1. C.N. SASIDHARAN, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL & JUDGE, EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COURT, ALAPPUZHA. 2. K. KANAKACHANDRAN, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND JUDGE, EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COURT, ALAPPUZHA. BY SMT.V.P.SEEMANDINI, SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADV. SMT. LEKSHMY RAMANATHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF KERALA, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT., DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.R.BINDU FOR R1 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ========================================= W.A.No.1131 of 2005 - D =============================== Dated this the 24th day of March, 2009. J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioners are the appellants. They were working as Industrial Tribunals in the State. The normal age of retirement of Industrial Tribunal was 55 years. The Government by order dated 1.7.1995 enhanced their age of retirement as 60 years. Still later, by order dated 22.11.1996 the said order was cancelled. While so, the appellants reached the age of superannuation (55 years) and retired from service on 29.2.2000 and 30.11.2000 respectively. Later, Government themselves came forward and issued Ext.P3 order dated 29.6.2002 restoring retirement age of the Industrial Tribunals as 60 with retrospective effect. Pursuant to the said order of the Government, both of them were reinstated and they joined duty also. The appellants claimed payment of salary and all service benefits for the period they were kept out from their duty from the date of superannuation to the date of reinstatement. The said claim was considered by the Government and rejected by W.A.No.1131 of 2005 - D 2 Ext.P8. Challenging Ext.P8, the present writ petition was filed. The learned Judge after hearing both sides quashed Ext.P8 and also directed that the leave available in the credit of the petitioners shall be adjusted for covering the period of absence. If there was any deficiency, thereafter, the remaining period was ordered to be treated as leave without allowance as contemplated in Rule 88 of Part I KSR. 2. Dissatisfied with the direction, the writ petitioners preferred this appeal. Learned senior counsel Smt.V.P.Seemanthini appearing for the appellants handed over an amendment to the KSR introduced on 11.5.2002 with retrospective effect from 1.7.1995 enhancing the retirement age of Industrial Tribunals to 60 years. Learned senior counsel also submitted that the appellants may be able to get further benefits than that were granted by the judgment under appeal, in view of the above amendment. This being a cause of action which was not the subject matter of the writ petition, we feel that the appeal can be disposed of giving liberty to the appellants to move the W.A.No.1131 of 2005 - D 3 Government, if so advised, to get the additional benefits if any available from the aforementioned amendment to the KSR. The writ appeal is disposed of as above. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE. bkn/-