IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 9TH AUGUST 2011 / 18TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 19705 of 2011(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.MANI,CARPENTER ON DAILY WAGES, KHADI CENTER,BALUSSERY,(AGED 54,S/O.KARAPPAN, THARIPALA HOUSE,PANANGAD.P.O,BALUSSERY, KOZHIKODE-673612). (THE AGE OF THE PETITIONER IS CORRECTED AS `55' INSTEAD OF `54' AS PER ORDER DATED 9.8.2011 IN I.A.NO.13008/2011) BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN SRI.THOMAS CHAZHUKKARAN SRI.THUSHAR NIRMAL SARATHY SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR SRI.P.K.RAKESH KUMAR SMT.M.A.RUXANA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY INDUSTRIES(K)DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. KERALA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-695001. 3. PROJECT OFFICER,DISTRICT KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES OFFICE,KOZHIKODE-673610. BY G.P.SMT.SMITHA SUKUMAR FOR R1 ADV. SRI.K.P.HARISH,SC,KERALA KHADI BOARD FOR R2-3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 19705 of 2011(K) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A.439/99 DATED 29-10-2003. EXT.P2: PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 30-10-2009. EXT.P3: PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO.K.B.4705/09/E1(B) WITH RELEVANT EXTRACT OF ANN-1. EXT.P4: PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF BOARD RESOLUTION BEARING DECISION NO.S.3. EXT.P5: PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO.KB1/2011/E8/RT1(13) DATED 28.2.11. EXT.P6: PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 8.1.2010. EXT.P7: PHOTOCOPY OF THE SERVICE PARTICULARS OF SRI.M.SASEENDRAN, SUPERVISOR (CARPENTER & BLACK SMITHY) // TRUE COPY // TKS P.S. TO JUDGE C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.19705 of 2011 ---------------------------- Dated 9th August, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner who is working as Carpenter on daily wages under the 2nd respondent filed this writ petition mainly with the prayer to declare that the petitioner is entitled to be regularised in service of the 2nd respondent as carpenter in the light of Exts.P2 to P4. The further prayer is for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the first respondent to finalise the regularization of the petitioner as carpenter from the date of his completing 10 years of service with consequential benefits and also for a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd and 3rd respondents to pay the wages to which the petitioner is entitled in terms of Ext.P6 with effect from 15.1.2010. 2. Ext.P3 would reveal that the petitioner commenced his service on daily wage basis on 1.1.1976. In fact, he commenced the said service under the erstwhile Balussery Gramodaya Khadi Sangh. Subsequently, in the year 1983 it was taken over by the 2nd respondent along with the employees. It is contended that despite the issuance of Ext.P6 whereby the wages attached to the post of Carpenter was revised to Rs.200/- per day the respondents are continuing to effect payment to the petitioner only at the rate of Rs.75/- per day. The WP(C).No.19705/2011 2 further contention of the petitioner is that in terms of Ext.P2 order the claim of the petitioner for regularization is also to be considered by the respondents. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed in this writ petition by the 2nd and 3rd respondents. In paragraph 10 it has been stated thus:- “10. It is most respectfully submitted that the petitioner never approached the 2nd respondent Board for the enhancement of daily wages. If he did so by way of a representation it would have been examined in tune with (Ext.P6) the present Government Orders prescribing daily wage. As the matter stands as above the present writ petition is benefit of any merit and is liable for rejection only.” The tenor of the contentions therein would suggest that the entitlement of the petitioner for wages at the enhanced rate was not considered so far only on account of his failure to approach the 2nd respondent subsequent to the issuance of Ext.P6. Such an attitude of a model employer like the 2nd respondent cannot be appreciated at all. When once the wage is revised in respect of a particular category the individual employee belonging to the said cadre need not approach the employer for getting the revised wage and even without a representation from such employees the employer has a duty to consider and grant wages to the members of that category according to their entitlement. True that, if an option is required to be submitted that can be notified to them. WP(C).No.19705/2011 3 Evidently, going by Ext.P6 it was revised with effect from 15.1.2010. In the light of the statement made in paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit and also in the absence of denial of the entitlement of the petitioner to get wages at the revised rate in the light of Ext.P6 the same cannot be disputed. Therefore, there will be a direction to the respondents to effect payment to the petitioner in accordance with the revised rate in terms of Ext.P6. Needless to say that the petitioner shall also be paid arrears taking into account his entitlement, in terms of Ext.P6. After such quantification the amount payable to the petitioner shall be paid to him expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 4. As already noticed hereinbefore, the petitioner has yet another claim for regularization on the strength of Ext.P2. In the counter affidavit it has been stated that the Board has already approached the Government to withdraw the proposal made for regularization of its employees including that of the petitioner. There is nothing on record to show that subsequent to the same Government have granted permission to withdraw the same. In view of the said postilion, without making any observation as to the entitlement of the petitioner for regularization, the first respondent is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for WP(C).No.19705/2011 4 regularization based on the relevant Government orders and also the decisions on the said issue by this Court as also that of the Hon'ble Apex Court, expeditiously. The writ petition is disposed of, accordingly. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS