UMAYAMMAL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these cases, provisional or temporary employees working in Government Departments, Government Companies, Statutory Corporations and Local Bodies question the action of the respective authorities concerned taken for terminating their services. Many of them were appointed being sponsored by the Employment Exchange and engaged invariably for varying periods of short duration. The foremost contention raised in these proceedings is that these employees are all governed by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - the Act, for short. Discharge of the persons or refusal to continue their employment after the stipulated period, according to the petitioners amounts to retrenchment under the Act. The petitioners take up the position that such retrenchment, even in respect of posts under the Government has to conform to the requirements under the Act - provisions under Chapter V-A of the Statute.

(2.) A question will certainly arise in the case of Government employees and certain statutory corporations whether the claims of the temporary employees for continuance in service on the basis of the rights under the Act will conflict with or infringe the rights of those persons who are regularly recruited to the posts concerned on advice by the Public Service Commission. Art.315 of the Constitution mandatorily requires the establishment of Public Service Commission for the Union and a Public Service Commission for each State. And under Art.320 the Public Service Commission have to be consulted on all matters relating methods of recruitment to civil services and for civil posts on the principles to be followed in making appointments to civil services and posts and in making promotions and transfers from one service to another and on the suitability of candidates for such appointments, promotions and transfers. Further it is the duty of the Public Service Cora-mission to conduct examinations for appointments to the service of the State. Besides sections like the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as well as the backward classes who enjoy the protective discrimination constitutionally sanctioned, benefit by the selection process through the Public Service Commission. Art.321 empowers extension of the functions of the Public, Service Commission "as respects the services of the Union or the State and also as respects the services of any local authority or other body corporate constituted by law or of any public institution". However in none of these cases any of the petitioners claim the right to continue in service as against a regularly recruited appointee advised by the Public Service Commission. Therefore such a question - right of a provisional hand vis-a-vis right of an advisee by the Public Service Commission, is not being considered here. Such a question would certainly raise very serious issues in the light of the constitutional provisions. Art.14 and 16 of the Constitution guarantee equality before law and equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. Every citizen is entitled to be considered for appointment for any post under the State. And it could very well be said that the Constitution has designed a highly placed institution the Public Service Commission to do the duty of selection to the service in accordance with the constitutional provisions. We will leave those issues to cases where they actually arise on the pleadings.

(3.) We come back to the question of benefits under the Act - more specifically under Chapter V-A of the Act. There the question is, can these provisional employees be taken as workmen and further can they be considered to be employed in an industry as defined in the Act. A workman is defined in S.2(s) of the Act to mean: