(1.) The sole question that falls for decision in this O.P. is whether the petitioner, sponsored by the employment exchange and appointed by the 2nd respondent, the Executive Engineer, by his proceedings Ext. P1 dated 12-11-1984 purely on a temporary basis under R.9(a)(i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 (the Rules) for a period of 180 days or till regular appointment through Public Service Commission is made, whichever is earlier, is entitled to continue in the post even after the expiry of 180 days beyond which in terms of Ext. P1 appointment order she could not remain in the post. When the stay petition, C.M.P No. 13473 of 1985, came up for consideration, our learned brother Kalliath J., referred the matter to a Division Bench in view of the apparent divergence in approach made by John Mathew, J., & Radhakrishna Menon, J., on the one hand and Sukumaran J., on the other.
(2.) R.9(a)(i) of the Rules reads as follows:
(3.) A large number of writ petitions challenging the termination of service of the petitioners were filed in this Court contending that they were workmen within the definition of that term in S.2(8) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the termination of their services amounted to retrenchment under S.2 (oo) of that Act, and therefore, such termination was invalid for non compliance with the provisions contained in Chapter V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The question was decided by a Full Bench of this Court in Umayammal's case ( 1982 KLT 829 (F.B.)). The same question came up before the Supreme Court and the decision relied on (1984 KLT 17) is the one rendered by the Supreme Court while disposing of the appeals.