IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2009 / 4TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 5532 of 2006(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT, P.B.NO.14, KALADY-683574, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.DAMODARAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN,SC,SANKARACHA.UTY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SOUTH INDIAN WORKERS CONGRESS (INTUC-I)MASS HOTEL ANNEXE, COCHIN-682 018, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. 2. K.V.ANIL MITHRA, "RETHAS", KAMALESWARAM, MANACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. K.DILEEP, "DIL BHAVAN", NEAR VETTIKONAM SCHOOL, MANIKANDESWARAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-13. 4. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA. ADV. SRI.PAULSON C.VARGHESE FOR R1 TO 3 SRI.C.ARUN PRASANTH FOR R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF DIVISION BENCH IN WRIT APPEALS 826/96 AND WA 827/96 DT.18.7.1996. P2: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT OF THE DIVISION BENCH DT.23.3.2000 IN WA 885/892, 893 AND 957 OF 1998. P3: TRUE COPY OF JOINT PETITION DT.30.5.2000 SUBMITTED BY SANSKRIT UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION AND SANSKRIT UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEES FRONT. P4: TRUE COPY OF REFERENCE ORDER DT.8.4.2003, ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT, WITH COPIES OF ANNEXURES. P5: TRUE COPY OF JOINT CLAIM STATEMENT FILED ON 21.8.03 BY SRI.K.V.ANIL MITRA AND K.DILEEP IN ID NO.24/2003. P6: TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT DT.8.1.2004 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNIVERSITY. P7: TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT FILED BY SMT.GIRIJA P. VELAYUDHAN ON 4.6.2004. P8: TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION DT.20.9.2004 FILED BY THE PETITIONER- UNIVERSITY. P9: TRUE COPY OF LISTS OF WORKMEN FILED BY THE ADVOCATE FOR WORKMEN ON 20.10.04. P10: TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT DT.7.5.2005 FILED BY THE SECRETARY, SOUTH INDIA WORKERS CONGRESS. P11: TRUE COPY OF CLAIM STATEMENT DT.19.5.05 FILED BY COUNSEL FOR WORKMEN. P12: TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT DT.19.5.2005 FILED BY COUNSEL FOR WORKMEN. P13: TRUE COPY OF PROOF AFFIDAVIT DT.6.10.2005 FILED BY THE MANAGEMENT WITNESS, MW1. P14: TRUE COPY OF AWARD OF R4 TRIBUNAL DT.14.11.2005 IN ID 24/2003. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.5532 of 2006 .................................................................... Dated this the 25th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT W.P.(C) is filed by the Sanskrit University, Kalady challenging Ext.P14 award passed by the Industrial Tribunal directing the University to pay backwages to the employees terminated by the University in terms of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. I heard Senior counsel Sri.M.K.Damodaran appearing for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Counsel for the petitioner has relied on Exts.P1 and P2 judgments of the Division Bench of this court holding that appointments made in the petitioner-University in the 1990s were irregular and illegal. Pursuant to the observations of this court in the Division Bench judgment, University considered eligibility of several employees to continue in service. It was found that appointments were made without the employees undergoing any fair selection process and all those found illegally appointed were terminated by the University. Based on an observation in the judgment, the Union sought reference of the question for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal and Government accordingly referred the question of legality of 2 termination of employees to the Industrial Tribunal. The Industrial Tribunal has not given any finding that the employees involved were appointed through a fair process of selection and their appointments were legal. On the other hand, the Tribunal only found that the employees terminated were in service from 1992 onwards and so much so, they could be terminated only in terms of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The contention of Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that Section 25F does not come to the rescue of those whose appointments were found illegal. In fact, he has relied on findings of this court in Exts.P1 and P2 about the irregularities in appointment in the University. Respondent-Union also has no case that the employees got employment through a fair process of selection or open test or interview. In other words, admittedly appointments were made in a clandestine manner against all norms and therefore, such appointments have to be declared illegal. In my view, before proceeding to consider eligibility for relief under Section 25F, the Tribunal should have considered whether appointment of employees terminated was properly made. The Syndicate of the University ordered termination only after finding that the employees who got appointment was through irregular ways. Section 25F does not apply to a case of termination of illegally appointed employees. On the other hand, retrenchment referred to in 3 Section 25F applies to properly employed persons who were in service. So much so, the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal declaring the termination of the employees as illegal is only to be set aside and I do so. Consequently, the terminated employees are not entitled to compensation ordered by the Tribunal under Section 25F. During pendency of the W.P., some of the terminated employees were granted wages under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, under orders of this court. Besides this, they are not entitled to any other relief. The W.P. is therefore allowed setting aside Ext.P14 award of the Industrial Tribunal. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms