K KRISHNANKUTTY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Common questions arise for consideration in all these cases. Learned single Judge vide order dated 8th August 2005 referred these cases to the Division Bench to examine the question whether appointment to the post of Mazdoor would fall within the purview of the Kerala Public Service Commission in view of the Kerala Public Service Commission (Additional Functions as Respects Certain Corporations and Companies) Act, 1970 (Act 9 of 1970) read with the Kerala Public Service Commission (Consultation by Corporations and Companies) Rules, 1971.

(2.) Learned Judge on the same day also disposed of OP. 5311 of 2003 quashing the award dated 4-10-2002 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad and directed the Industrial Tribunal to consider the claim of regularisation of the service of CLPW (Casual Labour Pool Workers) who had worked for not less than 200 days prior to 1.11.2000 afresh. Industrial Tribunal was directed to dispose of the matter within a period of three months from the date on which a copy of the judgment is made available to the Tribunal. So far as the writ petitioners in all these cases are concerned the award has already been quashed by the learned single Judge in OP. 5311 of 2003 and therefore the only question posed for consideration is whether the post of Mazdoor would fall within the purview of Public Service Commission.

(3.) Sri. M.K. Damodaran who led the arguments submitted that Malabar Cements is a government company which has already been included within the purview of Act 9 of 1970 and therefore consultation with the P.S.C. is a pre requisite for effecting appointment to the post of Mazdoors. Counsel also submitted even if this post would not fall within the purview of Public Service Commission recruitment be confined only to those candidates who have been sponsored by Employment Exchange. Counsel referred to the provisions in the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959. Counsel referred to several decisions of Supreme Court as well as this Court such as Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Waterfront Workers, , Jacob M. Puthuparambil v. Kerala Water Authority, (1991) 1 SCC 25, Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress, (1991) Suppl. (1) SCC 600, State of Kerala and Ors. v. Jyothi S.S. and Ors. (2002 (1) KLT SN 126 = ILR 2002 (2) (Ker.) 341, Sabu Kurian v. Meenachil East Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. 1999 (2) KLT 180 and submitted, in any view of the matter, since the persons represented by petitioners' union are being engaged as casual labourers for over 10 to 15 years the respondent Government Company is bound to regularise them in service. Counsel also submitted, the steps taken by the company to fill up the post of Mazddor through direct recruitment is illegal and would defeat the right of the members of the petitioners' union for regularisation in service. Counsel submitted, in any view of the matter since the question of regularisation of CLPW is pending consideration before the Industrial Tribunal no appointments be effected in the meanwhile. Identical is the contention raised by Advocate Sri. Thampan Thomas and Ors.