INFORMATION KERALA MISSION Vs. MURUKADAS R.MURUKAVILASOM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Information Kerala Mission and its Executive Director have preferred this appeal challenging judgment dated 7/1/2020 in WP(C) No.36595/2018. The writ petition was filed by respondents 1 to 10 seeking for a direction to command the 2nd appellant herein to appoint them in the available vacancies existing in the appellant organisation in compliance with Ext.P4 order of the State of Kerala. By Ext.P4, the Government had directed filling up of 76 posts in the first appellant organization from among the candidates who were engaged on daily wages basis in various Municipalities to carry out the data entry works. The appellants herein objected to the above request. According to them, the petitioners were persons who were selected by them as temporary daily wages staff on the directions of the Government to carry out computerisation of Municipalities. The duty was data entry and master collection at the Municipalities. According to them, since the petitioners were recruited on behalf of the Municipalities and payment was made to them from the funds of the Municipalities, they cannot be ordered to be regularized with the first appellant establishment. It is for the petitioners to approach the Municipalities for regularization, if any. It is further submitted that pursuant to judgment in WP(C) No.4437/2015, the nd appellant had rejected the request made by the petitioners to reengage them in service, against which they filed WP(C) No. 31809/2015 and the Government was directed to consider the representation. According to them, they have requested the Government to recall Ext.P4 order as per letter dated 19/11/2018 [Ext.R3(d)]. Reminder was sent on 26/11/2018 and at that stage, the writ petition was filed.

(2.) Learned Single Judge found that Government having issued Ext.P4 order, the 2nd appellant is bound to issue orders in obedience with the same and accordingly, the appellants were directed to implement Ext.P4.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi , 2006 4 SCC 1, Union of India v. Vartak Labour Union , 2011 4 SCC 200 and Union of India and others v. All India Trade Union Congress and Others , 2019 5 SCC 773. The principal argument of the appellants is that all the persons covered by Ext.P4 were not their employees. They have selected them on a temporary basis and they were deputed to the Municipalities for carrying out certain data entry works. They were paid from the funds of the Municipality and at no point of time, there was any employer-employee relationship between the first appellant establishment and the petitioners.