IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2009 / 25TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 33736 of 2006(N) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- MICHAEL SAMSON, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.BERNARD JOSEPH, ALAYIDATH HOUSE, MANASSERY, MUNDAMVELI P.O., KOCHI, (WORKING AS SALESMAN, VYASA STORE, KANNAMALY). BY ADVS. MR.A.X.VARGHESE, MR.A.V.JOJO. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. JOINT SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. MANAGING DIRECTOR, MATSTYAFED, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-3. 3. DISTRICT MANAGER, MATSYAFED, THOPPUMPADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. MOHAMMED HASHIM, R2 & R3 BY MR. P.K. VIJAYA MOHAN, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.33736/2006-N: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY MEDICAL BOARD OF DISTRICT HOSPITAL. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.M.FED/EM/226/LD:44/93-94 DTD.10/07/03. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE STOCK REGISTER OF 1998-1999. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE LEAVE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE R.3. IS PRODUCED FOR PROVING THE NATURE OF JOB AND DESIGNATION OF THE PETITIONER DURING THE PERIOD. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER OF RELIEVING DTD. 30/11/06 ISSUED BY DISTRICT MANAGER. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE SALARY CERTIFICATE DTD. 22/02/2005. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION TO THE FISHERIES MINISTER DTD. 30/11/2004. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 03/06/04 FROM R.2. TO PRIVATE SECRETARY OF THE MINISTER OF FISHERIES AND EXCISE. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 05/10/2007. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R2.A: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. M4.23516/88 DTD. 30/09/1988 OF THE DIRECTOR OF FISHEREIS, KERALA. EXT.R2.B: COPY OF THE PAY FIXATION STATEMENT IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.R2.C: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. MATSYAFED/E2/3291/06 DTD. 28/11/2006 OF THE R.2. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.33736 OF 2006 ------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner entered in the service of the Kerala Fisheries Corporation as casual labourer in January, 1980. His services were regularized with effect from 1.4.1981. In 1985, Kerala Fisheries Corporation was liquidated and the employees were given option to get absorbed in various establishments. 2. Among others, petitioner exercised his option to be absorbed under the 2nd respondent. Accordingly, by Ext.R2(a), along with others, the petitioner was also allotted to the 2nd respondent, where he continued as a worker. According to the petitioner, for the period from 13.7.1993 to 1.2.1999, he was entrusted with the work of Store Keeper. He refers to Ext.P2 in this context. It is stated that, subsequently, he was shifted to Vyasa Store of the 2nd WP(c).No.33736/06 2 respondent, with the additional charge of Salesman cum Clerk. It is stated that this arrangement commenced on 2.2.1999 and continued till 30.11.2006, when he was relieved as per Ext.P4. 3. The complaint in this writ petition is that, for the period from 1993, when he worked as a Store Keeper and for the period from 1999 when he worked as a Salesman cum Clerk, he was paid only the wages that are payable to a worker and that additional allowances were not paid. He made representations, which were not fruitful and therefore the writ petitions is filed. 4. The 2nd respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit. According to the 2nd respondent, on the winding up of the Kerala Fisheries Corporation several workers were allotted to the 2nd respondent. It is stated that on the absorption of the employees like the petitioner they were retained in service in supernumerary posts. It is stated that as there was no post of worker, they were alloted to attend WP(c).No.33736/06 3 to the duties of Peons, Attender, Salesman, Store Keeper etc. It is stated that, it was in this process that the petitioner was also allotted the duties of store keeper and salesman. However, they dispute the claim of the petitioner that he worked as Salesman Cum Clerk in the Vyasya Stores. The respondent would therefore contend that, their obligation was only to pay salary as applicable to a worker and such payments have been made in full settlement of the claim of the petitioner. 5. I have heard the counsel appearing for both sides. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner was absorbed in the service of the 2nd respondent as a worker. It is also true that he was entrusted with the duties of Store Keeper and Salesman. However, the claim of the petitioner for wages as applicable to the Store Keeper or Salesman will depend upon the order assigning duties to the petitioner. None of the records produced by the petitioner would show that, while entrusting the duties of the aforesaid posts, the 2nd respondent had WP(c).No.33736/06 4 made it a condition that he will be entitled to the wages or other allowances as applicable to those categories. If that be so, I am not persuaded to hold at this distance of time that the petitioner should be paid the wages or other allowances that are applicable to the post of Store Keeper for the period from 1993-99 and that of Salesman for the period from 199- 2006. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.33736/06 5